Should Big Brother be watching you?

Philly.com
Feb. 17, 2006

WITH 380 homicides last year and more than 40 so far this year -giving us the sense that 2006 won't be any better - is it time for Philadelphia to call in Big Brother?

That's essentially the question City Councilman Darrell Clarke wants to put before voters on the May 16 ballot. He's proposing that closed-circuit surveillance cameras be installed, perhaps permanently, in high-crime neighborhoods.

The cameras would sweep the neighborhoods and allow a single police officer to essentially patrol several neighborhoods at the same time.

It's a plan certain to attract supporters anxious for a solution to Philadelphia's persistent violence/drugs/gun-trafficking problems and opponents worried about the infringement of civil rights and privacy.

Clarke says he understands that, which is why he would rather have Philadelphians vote on the idea. (You can download a Daily News podcast interview with Councilman Clarke by going to www.Phillyfeed.com today.)

To be clear, nothing that Clarke is proposing is particularly novel or even extreme as a matter of law.

Federal courts have generally allowed the police to install cameras in neighborhoods. (Recordings of conversations, however, is generally prohibited.) Here in Philadelphia cops have just lacked the money and political backing.

That hasn't been the case elsewhere. Chicago, Baltimore and other cities have installed permanent surveillance cameras in high crime and high traffic neighborhoods and areas.

Baltimore officials claim the 260 cameras they have installed have reduced crime there by 25 percent. And residents not only appreciate the cameras being there, they also complain when there is talk of taking one away.

In fact, when Clarke announced his proposal, he says he got a number of calls, particularly from the Center City district, backing his plan.

This isn't a cheap proposal. Each camera can cost as much as $20,000. But it will be worth the cost if the cameras help reduce homicides, as they have done in Chicago. (One way the city can pay for them is by scraping the $6 million boondoggle security system planned for City Hall.)

At this stage, we support Clarke's proposal. But there are serious questions regarding civil liberties and privacy that must be weighed.

What kind of safeguards will prevent the police from abusing the cameras to spy into homes? Will lawyers be able to subpoena police recordings for use in civil suits and divorce cases?

Clarke thinks those questions can be smartly addressed. And we think they can be, too, as long as the process is clear and citizens can participate in determining where the cameras will point.