EPIC --- Privacy and Human Rights Report
|Title Page Previous Next Contents | Privacy Topics >Video Surveillance|
Surveillance cameras (also called Closed-Circuit Television or CCTV) are increasingly being used to monitor public and private spaces throughout the world. The leader is the United Kingdom, where GBP 500 million was spent in the last decade on expanding a surveillance industry that has an estimated 4.2 million cameras watching public spaces. Many central business districts in Britain are now covered by surveillance camera systems involving a linked system of cameras with full pan, tilt, zoom and night vision or infrared capability. London has created a so-called "ring of steel" around central London. Entrances to the area are monitored by 52 cameras, which photograph the driver, vehicle and its license plate number. CCTV systems are also in wide use in several other European countries where they are closely regulated. Surveillance of public spaces has grown markedly in the United States and Australia. In New York City, the NYCLU Surveillance Camera Project identified 4,468 cameras in Manhattan, an admittedly incomplete list. New York City is planning the "Lower Manhattan Security Initiative," based on London's "ring of steel." The NYC plan would greatly enhance the surveillance of downtown streets by installing another 3,000 cameras and license plate scanners to track the thousands of drivers who enter the Manhattan area daily, creating an operations center, and possibly using face recognition technology. The city estimates the new surveillance system would cost $90 million, $10 million of which would come from Homeland Security grants and $15 million from NYC. The city also is seeking to charge drivers a fee for entering Lower Manhattan; the fees would go toward the surveillance project. In Singapore, cameras are widely deployed for traffic enforcement and to prevent littering. Several governments are now considering using surveillance systems as an anti-terrorism tool. Some observers believe the surveillance camera phenomenon is dramatically changing the nature of cities. The technology has been described as the "fifth utility," where CCTV is being integrated into the urban environment in much the same way as the electricity supply and the telephone network in the first half of the century. Increasingly, camera surveillance systems are used in tandem with face recognition technology in order to more easily identify individuals.
Governments and law enforcement authorities have used video surveillance in various circumstances ranging from the prevention of crimes, the safety of urban environments and government buildings, traffic control, the monitoring of demonstrators, and in the context of criminal investigations. In the United States, several large cities have created sophisticated systems of surveillance, and many more are beginning to install smaller CCTV systems. In Washington, DC, surveillance cameras were initially placed in commercial areas and on national monuments, such as the Lincoln Memorial; however, in July 2006, the DC Council passed legislation to install cameras in neighborhoods. Chicago (with 2,250 cameras) and Baltimore join New York in expanding their large CCTV systems. Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley proposed a city ordinance requiring the installation of security cameras in bars open until 4 a.m. and other businesses open longer than 12 hours a day. Tampa, Virginia Beach, New Orleans, and small towns such as Cicero, Illinois and Newport, Rhode Island have also started installing cameras. In the United Kingdom, the government and police authorities have covered the country with more than 4.2 million cameras, some of them being used to check the license plates of cars entering cities, and even the face of drivers, making CCTV the single most heavily funded non-criminal justice crime prevention measure. Now, British authorities have authorized GBP 3 million to place video cameras onto the caps of police officers; that's enough to buy more than 2,000 camera hats, each with enough memory to hold 24 hours of tape.
In June 2007, the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) announced it would "significantly" increase the number of surveillance cameras located on the island's ceasefire buffer zone. UNFICYP was established in 1964 to prevent hostilities between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, and the buffer zone extends over 180 kilometers, approximately three percent of the island. The cameras will operate 24 hours a day, according to UNFICYP spokesman, with the aim of positively affecting peoples' behavior in a manner similar to the way traffic cameras improve driving.
In Europe, because the encompassing data protection legal framework of the European Union Data Protection Directive applies to video surveillance records, privacy authorities have started drawing up guidelines aimed at implementing the Directive's data protection principles to the field of video surveillance. The European Commission, in a recent consultation aimed at evaluating how the Directive had been implemented in practice as regards the processing of sound and image data, concluded that no change was required to the current rules for it to be applicable to the processing of personal data in the context of video surveillance, although more practical guidance was definitely needed. The Article 29 Working Party has issued several documents on video surveillance. One includes a summary of guidance issued by national data protection authorities.
In July 2000, the United Kingdom Data Protection Commissioner issued a code of practice on the use of CCTV. The code sets out guidelines for the operators of CCTV systems and makes clear their obligations under the recently implemented Data Protection Act 1998. A revised code of practice will be issued in 2007. The Greek Data Protection Commissioner issued a directive prohibiting the use of CCTV, except in certain circumstances. In Sweden, the 1998 Law on Secret Camera Surveillance restricts the use of video surveillance. Norway also provides specific rules for video surveillance. In Italy, the data protection authority issued guidelines for the installation of surveillance cameras, requiring, among other things, an assessment of whether the surveillance is proportional to the objectives and whether alternative measures would be possible. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment holding that the disclosure of CCTV pictures by a public authority may constitute a violation of an individual's right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Argentina, a court held that the use of CCTV in the entrance of a building is lawful under the country's Data Protection Act. The court reasoned that when one enters a building, one relinquishes a right to privacy. Further, the Data Protection Act does not define one's image as personal data.
In Canada, various provinces' privacy commissioners have established video surveillance guidelines, while Canada's Privacy Commissioner was active in limiting surveillance cameras[415 ]by, e.g., launching a lawsuit against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, calling their use of the system an unconstitutional breach of privacy.[416 ]In Washington, DC, after the District of Columbia (DC) City Council and the US Congress conducted several hearings on video surveillance, the DC City Council enacted legislation directing the Chief of Police of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to issue regulations on the use of video surveillance cameras and technology. The MPD subsequently issued formal rules on the use of CCTV in 2002. Amid much controversy, the rules were revised in 2006 under a "crime emergency" to allow greater discretion for the MPD in the installation, use and retention of CCTV data in neighborhoods. Though the "emergency" legislation has expired, the city will keep the 48 new cameras in residential neighborhoods, making the temporary change into a permanently expanded surveillance system. Some other police departments and at least one federal government agency have also established video surveillance guidelines. In September 2006, the Constitution Project, a US non-profit, released guidelines and model legislation for the use of CCTV. Among other things, the Constitution Project suggests a community should perform an open review process before installing a permanent CCTV system, such a system should only be used for a clearly articulated law enforcement purpose, detailed rules should be written governing the use of cameras and retention of their data, and the systems should be designed, from the beginning, to minimize privacy and civil liberty risks.
In the United States, some States have adopted statutes prohibiting the use of video surveillance for peeping purposes, and anti-video voyeurism legislation passed the US Congress in 2004. The US Video Voyeurism Prevention Act prohibits knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of a person without that individual's consent, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The German Criminal Code also forbids such video voyeurism. In 2004, Germany passed §201a of the Strafgesetzbuch (STGB), which prohibits the photographing of persons in their apartments or other protected areas (such as changing rooms), and publication and distribution of such photographs on the Internet is a crime. The issue gained prominence again last year, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel became a victim of voyeuristic CCTV watching. A security camera on the roof of Berlin’s Pergamon Museum was not aimed at thieves or vandals but instead looked into the home of Chancellor Merkel, zooming in on her sofa. The camera has since been "adjusted" so it can no longer spy on the chancellor.
Germany's Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz or BDSG) also regulates video surveillance. Section 6b, "Monitoring of publicly accessible areas with optic-electronic devices," states that such surveillance is "allowable only in so far as it is necessary 1. to fulfill public tasks, 2. to exercise the right to determine who shall be allowed or denied access or 3. to pursue rightful interests for precisely defined purpose," "and if there are no indications that the data subjects' legitimate interests prevail." Section 6b also requires that monitoring and the operator's identity be "made discernible by appropriate means," an "identified person" be told of this surveillance, and it regulates data retention.
Proponents contend that video surveillance is a deterrent to crime and gathers evidence of crimes. Generally, camera systems have been rolled out with little prior research into the effectiveness or appropriateness of the technology, as in most cases the deployment is driven by a public relations need to create the impression of heightened security. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of the camera system has been inconclusive. The most important and comprehensive research to date is the United Kingdom Home Office meta-study that has systematically reviewed the best studies done in the past that have analyzed the effectiveness of CCTV systems. Other studies, released earlier, found that in many areas with CCTV crime increased and street lighting was a more effective deterrent. In March 2002, a report issued by researchers at the University of Hull in United Kingdom, found that cameras do not have a major impact on most criminal activity, and even where they appear to have an effect it is because that crime is often just displaced elsewhere. Studies conducted by the Scottish Center for Criminology have yielded similar results. In 2003, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on the use of CCTV by law enforcement in Washington, DC, evaluating how law enforcement agencies have responded to civil liberties risks flowing from CCTV surveillance systems. A 2003 study released by the Australian Institute of Criminology reached equivocal conclusions about effectiveness of cameras in Australia. A 2005 U.S. study found that major that law enforcement officials in cities such as Detroit, Miami, and Oakland abandoned the use of camera systems because of poor results.
London's extensive camera surveillance system did not deter the terrorist attacks of July 7, 2005, which killed 52 people. Nor did the cameras deter the people who attempted to set off bombs in London's crowded theater district in June 2007. In that case, it was vigilant citizens who called in suspicions of smoking and gasoline-soaked cars who alerted the London police, not the cameras, though they later helped police investigate.
Campaigns have begun in several countries to stop the spread of surveillance camera systems, and to monitor the deployment of cameras in several cities. In Washington, DC, in 2002, EPIC launched Observing Surveillance to document the presence of surveillance cameras in the nation's capital. For several years, an international coalition composed of artists, scientists, engineers, scholars, and others have declared December 24 to be "World Sousveillance" day, and have staged several public protests to draw attention to the use of surveillance cameras.
The debate over the appropriateness of surveillance technology is likely to become sharper as the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated. New systems can digitally record images, which facilitate easy archiving, recovery, and sharing of information. Features include night vision, computer-assisted operation, thermal imaging, and motion detection facilities that help improve the operator's attentiveness by sounding an alert if suspicious activity is taking place. Some cameras even allow watchers to speak to the watched. The clarity of the pictures is usually excellent, with many systems being able to read a newspaper at a hundred meters. Technology is also being developed to spot patterns in the surveillance data such as recognizing faces, analyzing crowd behavior, and scanning the intimate area between skin surface and clothes using "passive millimeter wave technology" to search for contraband or weapons. Research into these technologies is receiving significant government funding for crime fighting and anti-terrorism purposes.
Tremendous progress in video surveillance technologies have led to the miniaturization of cameras and enabled wireless connectivity and access through the Internet. These developments, together with the fact that more and more people use them in a private setting and for private purposes, either to protect their property (security cameras), look after their children and nannies ("nanny cams"), monitor nursing home residents, conduct virtual child visitation by divorced parents, or send pictures to each other by mobile phone, raise questions about the extent to which people are ready to be observed everywhere they go in public places, or even, in private areas. Private bans on cell phone cameras have been imposed by health clubs, schools, and employers.
Video surveillance is also being increasingly used by private actors for law enforcement type purposes: to monitor their properties, business and commercial areas; to watch for thieves and pickpockets in shopping malls and casinos; to keep an eye on private gated communities and passengers in aircraft; or to detect drug dealing activities at schools. In Germany, developers are placing video cameras into street advertisements and attempting to discern people's emotional reactions to the ads. Cameras are also used to monitor some police activities. In countries without rules regulating video surveillance, it is relevant to question whether those private actors' monitoring activities should be limited, or at least be subject to the same constraints as government agents are.
Face recognition technology uses computerized pattern matching technology to automatically identify peoples' faces. While it is still very much in its infancy, it raises significant public policy questions because it enables the covert identification and classification of people in public. The borough of Newham in the United Kingdom first deployed a face recognition system to scan faces against a database to identify people "of interest." The Reykjavik airport in Iceland was among the first airports to use the technology. In the United States, this same kind of face recognition technology was used at the 2001 Super Bowl in Tampa, Florida to compare the faces of attendees to faces in a database of mug shots. There was widespread public outcry, prompting some to call the event the "Snooper Bowl."
Facial recognition systems also failed tests at airports in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas; Fresno, California; and Palm Beach County, Florida. One glaring example of a facial recognition system failure occurred when two people swapped passports at an Australian airport as a joke, but their deception was not caught by the facial recognition systems. Yet Australian authorities continued to test the technology, and the "trial" encompassed three years.
The US Department of Homeland Security is investing in face recognition technology so that federal marshals can surreptitiously photograph people in airports, bus and train stations, and elsewhere to check whether they are in terrorist databases. Oregon is one of 19 states that are using face recognition to compare driver's license applicants with databases of license holders in order to determine if applicants already have licenses. The Los Angeles police department is using handheld facial recognition devices. In Florida, police use special cameras to snap photos of suspects and transmit them from laptops in their vehicles to a state database with 4.5 million images. The German Federal Criminal Police Office hopes to create a system that would compare surveillance images to photo archives.
Scientists in Sweden have developed a "liveness-recognition" system that they say will reduce the chances that face recognition security systems will be fooled by still photographs of individuals. Dutch researchers are using experimental emotion-recognition software to test individuals' reactions to advertisements and marketing. In Japan, mobile phone companies use face recognition technology for entertainment – one service allows customers to message digital photos of themselves to determine which celebrity they most resemble.
Tests conducted in 2006 by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology showed an improvement in the technology, though the images used were "controlled" still or 3-D photos, not photographs taken on the street. Uncooperative subjects and changes in the environment, such as positioning or lighting, would continue to befuddle the technology. In fact, smiling Germans and Britons have thwarted their countries' biometric passport systems. Guidelines had to be issued, requiring subjects ensure neutral facial expressions and look directly into cameras.
As the power and capabilities of surveillance technology increases while the cost and size of systems decreases, there will be further incentives to use the technology. For example, the US Government requires its citizens and other countries to use biometric passports using face recognition technology. The US-VISIT immigration program is one of the world's largest face recognition programs. When someone applies for a visa, the Department of State photographs the individual and adds the image to the federal database. The National Database and Registration Authority of Pakistan is also using face recognition systems to identify passport holders. These and other developments may create new pressures for appropriate regulations to safeguard privacy and to prevent the misuse of the technology. Such facial recognition systems create significant privacy risks because the technique is surreptitious and the prospects for extensive profiling are clear.
 CCTV is a
visual surveillance technology, either analog or digital, designed for
monitoring various environments and activities. CCTV systems typically involve a
dedicated communications link between cameras and monitors, and involve a linked
system of cameras able to be viewed and operated from a control
 Testimony of Sheffield University Centre for Criminological Research Deputy Director Clive Norris before U.S. Department of Homeland Security Data Privacy & Integrity Advisory Committee, June 7, 2006, <http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_advcom_03-2006_mtgminutes_AM.pdf>; Surveillance Studies Network, A Report on the Surveillance Society For the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, available at <http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf>.
 Mark Townsend & Paul Harris, "Security Role for Traffic Cameras," Observer, February 9, 2003 <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,892081,00.html>; Stephen Fidler, "Ring of Steel Tightens on Suspect," Financial Times, June 29, 2007 <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1040c1fc-267e-11dc-8e18-000b5df10621.html>.
 Loren Siegel, Robert A. Perry, & Margaret Hunt Gram, "Who's Watching? Video Camera Surveillance in New York City and the Need for Public Oversight," New York Civil Liberties Union, December 13, 2006, available at
<http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/surveillance_cams_report_121306.pdf>; NYCLU Surveillance Camera Project <http://www.nyclu.org/surveillancecams/>. See also, New York Surveillance Camera Players <http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html>.
 Cara Buckley, "New York Plans Surveillance Veil for Downtown," New York Times, July 9, 2007, at A1, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09ring.html>; Tom Leonard, "'Ring of Steel' Plan to Protect New Yorkers," Telegraph, July 10, 2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/10/wny110.xml>.
 Stephen Graham, The Fifth Utility, Index on Censorship, Issue 3, 2000.
 See generally EPIC's Video Surveillance web page <http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/>.
 See generally EPIC’s Face Recognition web page <http://www.epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/>.
 In 2002, the
city of Garden Grove, California, enacted an ordinance requiring
cybercafés (providing Internet access for a fee) to maintain a video
surveillance system. The goal of this and other regulatory measures was to
control gang activity in cybercafés. In 2004, the California Court of
Appeal overturned a lower court's restraining order against implementation of
the law. The appeals court found that the surveillance requirement did not
violate constitutional privacy or free speech rights. Vo v. City of Garden
Grove, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (Cal. App. 4th Dist.
 See Marcia Biederman, "Automobiles: Are Red-Light Cameras Aimed at Safety or Fines?," New York Times, October 23, 2002, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/23/automobiles/23BIED.html> (on the use of red-light cameras by law enforcement); John Tierney, "Traffic Cameras Could Be Pressed Into Duty to Help Criminal Investigators," New York Times, October 15, 2002, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/15/national/15CAME.html>.
 See Kristen Lombardi, "Candid Cameras. Activists, Unions, and the ACLU Question Worcester Cops' Practice of Photographing Peaceful Demonstrators," Boston Phoenix, March 28, 2002 <http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02212398.htm>; Dorothy Korber, "Protesters Cry Foul over Police Videotaping," Sacramento Bee, March 5, 2003, available at <http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/crime/story/6218889p-7173447c.html>; Ian Austen, "For the Spy in the Sky, New Eyes," New York Times, June 20, 2002, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/20/technology/circuits/20SPYY.html> (on the use of helicopter cameras); Jim Dwyer, "Police Video Caught a Couple's Intimate Moment on a Manhattan Rooftop," New York Times, December 22, 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22rooftop.html?>.
 Allison Klein, "Street Cameras Are Likely to Stay," Washington Post, October 12, 2006, at DZ01, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101100733.html>. See EPIC, Comments to Metropolitan Police Department on Expansion of CCTV Pilot Program, <http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/cctvcom062906.pdf> (detailing the security and privacy risks inherent in expanding DC's CCTV system),
 Fran Spielman, "Feds Give City $48 Million in Anti-terrorism Funds," Chicago Sun-Times, December. 4, 2004, at A1, available at <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20041204/ai_n12571083>.
 "24-hour Surveillance Cameras Planned for Baltimore," Mercury News, June 10, 2004, "24-hour Camera Surveillance in City Is Part of Bigger Plan," Baltimore Sun, June 10, 2004 <http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/baltimore_surveillance_cameras.html>.
 Judy Keen, "Daley Wants Security Cameras at Bars," USA Today, February 14, 2006, available at <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-14-chicago-cameras_x.htm>.
 See David McGuire, "Virginia Beach Installs Face-Recognition Cameras," Washington Post, July 3, 2002, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19946-2002Jul3?>.
 Matt Baron, "Cameras to Keep Eye on Cicero," Chicago Tribune, February 10, 2005.
 Richard Salit, "Newport Nets Aid for Bridge Cameras," Providence Journal, January 7, 2005.
 For an overview of surveillance use in the United States, see California Research Bureau, Public and Private Applications of Video Surveillance and Biometric Technologies (2002) (CRB 02-006), available at <http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/06/02-006.pdf>. See also Letter from Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center, to Councilperson Kathy Patterson, District of Columbia City Council (December 17, 2003) <http://www.epic.org/privacy/protest/dccouncil_letter12_03.html>.
 See Mark Townsend & Paul Harris, "Security Role for Traffic Cameras," Observer, February 9, 2003, available at <http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,892001,00.html>.
 Over the three-year period of 1999 through 2001, the British government has made available GBP 170 million (~USD 272.5 million) for CCTV schemes in town and city centres, car parks, crime hot-spots and residential areas. See Brandon C. Welsh & David P. Farrington, Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review, Home Office Research Study 252, August 2002, available at <http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors252.pdf>.
 "Britain Takes Surveillance to New Level with Head-Mounted Video Cameras for Police," Associated Press, July 13, 2007 <http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/13/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Police-Cameras.php>.
 Leo Leonidou, "UNFICYP Steps Up Buffer Zone Surveillance," Cyprus Mail, June 6, 2007, available at <http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=32825&archive=1>.
 In May 2004,
the Deutsches Institut für Normung
(German Institute for Standardization), published a draft standard for a graphic
symbol to indicate surveillance by electronic means. DIN 33450 "Graphic Symbol
to Indicate Surveillance by Electronic Means (video symbol)." The uniform
symbol, a pictograph, is intended to provide a simple way of fulfilling any
legal requirement of making video surveillance known to the public.
 The consultation shows that there has been so far insufficient public debate about the limits to be placed on the use of video surveillance in order to safeguard data subjects' rights and freedoms, and that a number of legal and practical issues resulting from the implementation of the Directive in the Member States with respect to sound and image data is creating some uncertainty for operators called on to comply with the legislation and for individuals entitled to exercise their data protection rights. European Commission, First report on the implementation of the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC), COM (2003) 265(01), available at
<http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/rpt/2003/com2003_0265en01.pdf>; see also European Commission's Report on the transposition of Directive 95/46/EC homepage <http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/lawreport/index_en.htm>. See also British Institute of International & Comparative Law, Report on the Implementation of Directive 95/46/EC to the Processing of Sound and Image Data, May 16, 2003, available at <http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/docs/lawreport/consultation/biiclstudy-soundimage_en.pdf> (expert report that substantiates the European Commission's report).
 See Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29), Opinion 4/2004 on the Processing of Personal Data by means of Video Surveillance (February 2004) (WP 89) <http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2004_en.htm>. The WP29's opinion also discusses the consequences of processing of image and sound data under the standards of the European Data Protection directive. See also WP29, Working Document on the Processing of Personal Data by means of Video Surveillance (November 2002) (WP 67) <http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/workinggroup/wpdocs/2002_en.htm>.
 United Kingdom
Data Protection Commission, CCTV Code of Practice, July 2000, available at
 United Kingdom Data Protection Commission, Press Release, "Statement on Camerawatch," May 26, 2007, available at
 Hellenic Republic Data Protection Authority, Directive on Closed Circuit Television Systems, September 26, 2000 <http://www.dpa.gr/Documents/Eng/DIR.CCTV1122-26.09.2000.doc>.
 Norway Data Inspectorate, "Act of 14 April 2000 No. 31 Relating to the Processing of Personal Data (Personal Data Act)," April 14, 2000, available at
 Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, "Le regole di privacy per installare telecamere," May 20, 2004
<http://www.cittadinolex.kataweb.it/article_view.jsp?idCat=111&idArt=3509>. See also <http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/may/19italy-surveillance.htm>.
 European Court of Human Rights, Fourth Section, Peck v. The United Kingdom, Application No. 44647/98, Strasbourg, January 28, 2003, FINAL 28/04/2003 <http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Peck%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20The%20%7C%20United%20%7C%20Kingdom%20%7C%20Application%20%7C%20No.%20%7C%2044647/98&sessionid=1500764&skin=hudoc-en>.
 Data Protection Laws: News about data protection laws and habeas data in Latin America, June 14, 2005 <http://www.dataprotectionlaws.com.ar/blog/2005/06/14/argentine-court-rules-use-of-webcam-lawful/>.
See Commission d'accès à
l'information du Québec, Rules for Use of Surveillance Cameras with
Recording in Public Places by Public Bodies (June 2004)
Other Québec video surveillance documents are available at
[415 ]Charles Mandel, "Security Cams not OK in Canada?," Wired News, April 16, 2002 <http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51821,00.html>.
[416 ]A British Columbia court dismissed the suit in June 2003, ruling that the Commissioner had exceeded his authority in bringing the action. See "Privacy Challenge Tossed out by Courts," Canada.com (Decision available at <http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb%2Dtxt/sc/03/08/2003bcsc0862.htm>. The Privacy Commissioner subsequently withdrew his appeal <http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/ma_am/ma_030704_e.asp>. In another video surveillance case, the Commissioner upheld a complaint against a railroad for installation of a surveillance camera in a company yard <http://www.privcom.gc.ca/cf-dc/2003/cf-dc_030123_e.asp>. The Commissioner's finding was overturned by a court. Eastmond v. CP Railway, 2004 FC 852 (2004) at <http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2004/2004fc852/2004fc852.html>.
 The US House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, held a hearing on "Privacy vs. Security: Electronic Surveillance in the Nation's Capital" on March 22, 2002. See <http://www.dcwatch.com/issues/privacy.htm>. The DC City Council held hearings on video surveillance in June and November 2002: Hearing by the District of Columbia City Council Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Public Works and the Environment on the Use of Video Technology in Police Surveillance and Traffic Control, June 13, 2002 <http://www.dcwatch.com/issues/privacy.htm>; see also Adam Clymer, "Big Brother vs. Terrorist in Spy Camera Debate," New York Times, June 19, 2002, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/national/19PRIV.html> (on the DC Council hearing of June 13, 2002).
 Metropolitan Police
Department Video Surveillance Regulations Emergency Act of 2002, Act 14-302
(March 25, 2002)
 District of Columbia, Metropolitan Police Department, Metropolitan Police Department Use of Closed Circuit Television Cameras, D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, § 2500 (December 20, 2002).
 Allison Klein,
"Street Cameras Are Likely to Stay," Washington Post, October 12, 2006, at DZ01,
Matthew Cella, "D.C. Police Gain Wide Control of Monitors," Washington Times,
July 30, 2006.
 See Associated Press, "Police Set Policy on Photos, Taping," Portsmouth Herald, May 19, 2002, available at <http://www.caroptionsonline.com/2002news/5_19_sb2.htm> (Worcester, Massachusetts). The federal agency of the National Park Service released guidelines in response to a March 2002 United States Congress hearing on video surveillance. See "Controversy Grows over Police Video Surveillance," CNSNews.com, March 22, 2002, available at <http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200203%5CCUL20020322b.html>; National Park Service, "United States Park Police Closed Circuit Television Policy," June 24, 2003, available at <http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/uspp-cctv_policy-070903.pdf>.
 Constitution Project, "Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance: A Guide to Protecting Communities and Preserving Civil Liberties," September 29, 2006, available at <http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/Video_Surveillance_Guidelines_Report_w_Model_Legislation4.pdf>.
See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat.
§565.253, Wash. Rev. Code §9A-44-115.
See also State of Washington v. Glas,
147 Wn.2d 410 (Wash. 2002), available at
See also National Center for Victims of
Crime, "Video Voyeurism Laws," July 2005,
<http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=40459> (a listing of state laws prohibiting video voyeurism).
 Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law No, 108-495, codified at 18 U.S.C.S. § 1801, available at <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01301:>.
Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 201a, July 30,
 Ray Furlong, "Germans Probe Merkel Spy Camera," BBC News, March 27, 2006 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4849806.stm>.
 Federal Act on Data Protection ("BDSG"), January 14, 2003 (Bundesgesetzblatt, Part I, No 3, January 16, 2003), available at <http://www.bfdi.bund.de/cln_030/nn_535764/EN/DataProtectionActs/Artikel/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz-FederalDataProtectionAct,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bundesdatenschutzgesetz-FederalDataProtectionAct.pdf>.
See Michael McCahill & Clive
Norris, Literature Review, Urbaneye Working Paper No. 2, March 2002, available
 The Home Office study assesses the effectiveness of CCTV in three settings, center city areas and public housing, public transportation, and parking lots and garages. The report concludes that CCTV generally reduces crime to a small degree and has had no beneficial effect on crime in the US. However, it categorizes the findings depending on the settings, with a "very small" or "negligible beneficial effect on crime" in center city areas and public housing; "conflicting evidence of effectiveness" in public transportation; and "statistically significant reduction in crime of about forty-one percent" in parking lots and garages. The study also notes that other measures (improved lighting, painting, fencing, payment schemes, notices about CCTV, and security personnel) were in operation at the same time as CCTV. The report has also found out that CCTV had no effect on violent crimes, but had a significant desirable effect on vehicle crimes. Brandon C. Welsh & David P. Farrington, Crime Prevention Effects of Closed Circuit Television: A Systematic Review, supra.
 NACRO, "CCTV not a Crime Prevention Cure-All, Says Report," June 28, 2002, available at <http://www.nacro.org.uk/templates/news/newsItem.cfm/2002062800.htm>.
 Michael McCahill & Clive Norris, CCTV in Britain, Working Paper No. 3, Urbaneye Project, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Hull, March 2002, available at <http://urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp3.pdf>.
 The Scottish Centre for Criminology, Crime Prevention Publications, available at <http://www.scotcrim.u-net.com/researchc.htm>; and, Al Webb, "'Spy' Cameras vs Villains in Britain," UPI. March 8, 2002.
General Accounting Office, "Video Surveillance – Information on Law Enforcement's Use of Closed-Circuit Television to Monitor Selected Federal Property in Washington, DC, GAO 03-748," June 2003, available at <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03748.pdf>.
 Dean Wilson & Adam Sutton, Open-street CCTV in Australia, November 2003 (Australian Institute of Criminology, No. 271) <http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi271.pdf>.
 Ryan Davis, "Surveillance Cameras May Soon Be Coming to a Street Near You," Baltimore Sun, March. 16, 2005.
 Alan Cowell,
"4 Guilty in Failed 2005 London Bombing," New York Times, July 9, 2007
 Paisley Dodds, "Police Foil Major Terror Plot in London," Associated Press, June 30, 2007 <http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/06/30/police_foil_major_terror_plot_in_london/>; Kim Sengupta, Ian Herbert & Cahal Milmo, "Terror Plot Hatched in British hospitals," Independent, July 3, 2007 <http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2730423.ece>.
See generally Privacy International,
CCTV Pages, <http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cctv/index.html>;
"Watching Them, Watching Us," United Kingdom CCTV Surveillance Regulation
Campaign <http://www.spy.org.uk/>; EPIC's Video Surveillance web page
 In Washington, DC (see EPIC, Observing Surveillance Project homepage <http://www.observingsurveillance.org>); Vilnius (the Surveillance Camera Players Lithuania homepage <http://www.cameraplayers.tk/>); New York City (the Surveillance Camera Players homepage <http://www.notbored.org/the-scp.html>); Stockholm (<http://sot.smufsa.nu/index.html>); Amsterdam (<http://www.spotthecam.nl>); Bologna (<http://www.notbored.org/bologna-scp.html>).
 EPIC, Observing Surveillance <http://www.observingsurveillance.org>.
 World Sousveillance Day's homepage <http://wearcam.org/wsd.htm>.
 Jeremy Boren,
"City's Surveillance System to Get $3.4M Upgrade," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,
July 22, 2007
 In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), the US Supreme Court considered the police use of a thermal imager that detected infrared radiation (heat) emanating from a private home onto a public street. The Court worried that advancing technology would leave the homeowner at the mercy of "imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home." The decision turned in part on use by the government of "a device that is not in general public use, to explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion." The Court overturned a criminal conviction for growing marijuana that involved the warrantless use of a thermal imager.
 See John Markoff, "Inexpensive Technology Is Providing Vision to Machines," New York Times, June 17, 2002 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/17/technology/17VISI.html>; Grace Jean, "Sensor-Fusion Software Technology Replacing Traditional Security Systems," National Defense (July 2006), available at <http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/july/SensorFusionSoftware.htm>.
 "Talking Camera Tackles City Crime," Associated Press, November 17, 2005 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/17/tech/main1054526.shtml>.
 Ivan Amato, "Future Tech: Can Big Brother see right through your clothes?" Discover Volume 23 No. 7 (July 2002) <http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jul/feattech/?searchterm=Can%20Big%20Brother%20see%20right%20through%20your%20clothes>; Greg Barrett, "9/11 Brings a Windfall For State’s Spending," Baltimore Sun, March 20, 2005.
 See United States Defense Department's Human ID at a Distance Project <http://www.darpa.mil/iao/HID.htm> (web page deleted); Kari L. Dean, "Smartcams Take Aim at Terrorists," Wired, June 4, 2003, <http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,59092,00.html>; Seth Schiesel, "Security Cameras Now Learn to React," New York Times, March 6, 2003, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/technology/circuits/06secu.html>.
See Dennis K. Berman, "Will
Cameras-Phones Be Used to Humiliate Ordinary People?," The Wall Street Journal,
June 2, 2003. Tapes made by so-called nanny cams have been used in criminal
prosecutions. In a 1998 New Jersey case, a nanny being prosecuted for
mistreatment of a child in her care was convicted using evidence from a nanny
cam installed in the home by the parents. New Jersey v. Diaz, 308 N.J. Super.
504 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div 1998)
 See 2003 Md. Laws ch. 409 (requiring the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene to develop guidelines for nursing homes that elect to use electronic monitoring with specified consent); Tex. Health & Safety Code §242.501(a)(5) (authorizing a resident of a nursing home "to place in the resident's room an electronic monitoring device that is owned and operated by the resident or provided by the resident's guardian or legal representative.").
 Jim Buie, "Visitation Rights Are Becoming High-Tech," Washington Post, June 15, 2004, at C10, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41972-2004Jun14.html>.
 See Elisa Batista, "New Privacy Menace: Cell Phones?," Wired News, February 17, 2003 <http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,57692,00.html>; Sarah Marcisz, "Digital Advances Bring Privacy Concerns," Washington Times, February 10, 2003.
 Carolyn Said, "Are Camera Phones too Revealing? Locker Room Snooping, School Cheating Prompt Bans, High-Tech Protection Plans," San Francisco Chronicle, May 16, 2004 <http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/16/SPYPHONE.TMP>.
 Dean E.
Murphy, "As Security Cameras Sprout, Someone's Always Watching," New York Times,
September 29, 2002, at A1, available at
Prendergast, "They Log On, Look Out with Web Crime Cams. Citizens on Cyber
Patrol," Cincinnati Enquirer, June 17, 2003, available at
Liza Porteus, "Cincinnati Residents Try High-Tech Crime Stopping," Fox News,
July 15, 2003
 Bill Clements, "Brother's Corporate Sponsor," CityPages, June 18, 2003, available at <http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1176/article11318.asp>.
 Jeffrey Selingo, "Online, All the Time, An All-Seeing Surveillance System," New York Times, April 24, 2003, available at <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/24/technology/circuits/24howw.html>.
 Elisa Batista, "Videocams Record Airline Flights," Wired News, July 18, 2003 <http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,59652,00.html>; Lisa Stark, "Airline to Be First to Install Cameras on Planes," ABC News, March 30, 2002, available at <http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130414&page=1>.
 Katie Hafner, "Where the Hall Monitor Is a Webcam," New York Times, February 27, 2003 <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/circuits/27scho.html>.
 Trinity Hartman, "Advertisements That Watch You Smile," Deutsche Welle, July 10, 2007 <http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2676087,00.html>.
 In 2001, Texas passed a law encouraging the use of cameras by law enforcement agencies for traffic and pedestrian stops. 2001 Tex. Crim. Proc. Code §§ 2.131-2.138. The tapes are useful in measuring the extent of racial profiling in traffic stops.
See generally General Accounting
Office, "Technology Assessment: Using Biometrics for Border Security,
GAO-03-174," November 2002, available at
 For more information, see EPIC's Face Recognition web page <http://www.epic.org/privacy/facerecognition/>. For more on Tampa's experience with face recognition technology, see Jay Stanley & Barry Steinhardt, "Drawing a Blank: The Failure of Facial Recognition Technology in Tampa, Florida (2002)" (American Civil Liberties Union) <http://archive.aclu.org/issues/privacy/drawing_blank.pdf>.
Richard Willing, "Airport Anti-terror Systems Flub Tests," USA Today, September
 "Fed: Govt Extends Trial of Faster Passenger Screening," Australian Associated Press, February 2, 2005; "Australia Steps Up Border Security with Biometrics Trial," Kyodo News Service, September 29, 2005; Karen Dearne, "SmartGate Joke a Serious Concern,” Australian, March 4, 2003.
Thomas Frank, "Face Recognition Next in Terror Fight,” USA Today, May 10,
2007, available at
 "Oregon to use face recognition software for driver's licenses," Associated Press, July 23, 2007 <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003802073_webfaces23m.html>.
 Richard Winton, "ID System Gets in Face of Criminals," Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2004.
 Thomas Frank, "Local Agencies Test Sites for ID Software,” USA Today, May 10, 2007, available at <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2007-05-09-facial-recognition-tech_N.htm>.
 Patrick Marshall, "Facial Recognition around the World," GCN, June 4, 2007, available at <http://www.gcn.com/print/26_13/44425-1.html>.
Duncan Graham-Rowe, "Looking for Signs of Life," Technology Review, July 17,
 Nicole Martinelli, " Emotion-Recognition Software Knows What Makes You Smile," Wired, July 16, 2007 <http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/07/expression_research>.
 Shinichi Terada, "New Cell Phone Services Tap Image-Recognition Technologies," Japan Times, June 26, 2007 <http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20070626a1.html>.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Face Recognition Vendor Test
2006" (March 2007),
 Mark Lawson, "Keep your face straight: passport grins pass into history," Guardian, September 12, 2005 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1567953,00.html>; "No smiling for passport photos in Germany," Associated Press, September 15, 2005 <http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-09-15-german-smiles_x.htm>.
US Department of State, "Visa Waiver Program"
Department of State, "U.S. Electronic Passport"
 See EPIC's US-VISIT page, <http://www.epic.org/privacy/us-visit/>.
 National Database and Registration Authority of Pakistan, "Multi-Biometric E-Passport" <http://www.nadra.gov.pk/site/410/default.aspx>.
 See Testimony of EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg before DC City Council, June 13, 2002 <http://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/testimony_061302.html>.