Narrator:
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM
IS PROVIDED BY
THE GRUBER FAMILY FOUNDATION
AND BY THE MEMBERS OF KQED.
A CO-PRODUCTION OF KQED
AND THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.
Vu:
CUTTING-EDGE TECHNOLOGIES
CHANGING THE WAY
POLICE FIGHT CRIME.
McNutt:
WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DO IS
A LIVE VERSION OF GOOGLE EARTH,
ONLY WITH
A FULL TiVo CAPABILITY.
Iketani: WE, BASICALLY,
KEPT IT PRETTY HUSH-HUSH.
Vu:
THE POWER TO TRACK MORE PEOPLE
AND DATA THAN EVER BEFORE.
Wiltz: IT'S GONNA BE
WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD.
Lynch:
THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT
ANYBODY COULD END UP
BEING IN THAT DATABASE.
[ SIREN WAILS ]
Vu: WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE
BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY?
McNutt:
THERE IS A TRADE-OFF.
[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]
Halverson:
JUST LOOK HERE, PLEASE.
Vu: A LOOK AT
THE STATE OF SURVEILLANCE.
HELLO, AND WELCOME
TO THIS SPECIAL PRESENTATION,
"STATE OF SURVEILLANCE."
I'M THUY VU.
LAST JUNE, WE LEARNED
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
HAS BEEN COLLECTING AMERICANS'
PHONE RECORDS AND E-MAIL
FOR YEARS.
AS A NATIONAL CONVERSATION
CONTINUES
ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
ACCESS TO PRIVATE INFORMATION,
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN CALIFORNIA
ARE EXPERIMENTING
WITH NEW CRIME-FIGHTING TOOLS --
EYES ON THE STREET
AND IN THE SKIES,
FEEDING IMAGES
TO COMMAND CENTERS.
AMANDA PIKE WITH THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING
SHOWS US SOME OF THE NEW
TECHNOLOGIES NOW BEING TESTED.
Pike:
OFFICER ROB HALVERSON
OF THE CHULA VISTA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
IS TESTING A TECHNOLOGY
THAT COULD CHANGE
HOW POLICE FIGHT CRIME.
[ POLICE RADIO CHATTER ]
HE'S ON A CALL TO VERIFY
THE IDENTITY OF A WOMAN
JUST ARRESTED
FOR POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS.
[ DOG BARKS ]
HE DOESN'T NEED TO ASK HER NAME
OR CHECK HER I.D.
HE JUST TAKES HER PICTURE.
Halverson:
JUST LOOK HERE, PLEASE.
Pike: HIS TABLET USES
FACIAL-RECOGNITION SOFTWARE
TO FIND THE SUSPECT'S MUG SHOT
AND CRIMINAL HISTORY.
Halverson:
YOU CAN LIE ABOUT YOUR NAME,
YOU CAN LIE
ABOUT YOUR DATE OF BIRTH,
YOU CAN LIE ABOUT YOUR ADDRESS.
BUT TATTOOS, BIRTHMARKS,
SCARS DON'T LIE.
Pike: POLICE HAVE ACCESS
TO MORE DATA THAN EVER BEFORE,
RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THAT
INFORMATION IS USED AND STORED.
THE TABLET IS PART OF A PILOT
PROGRAM IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
Halverson:
IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL,
AND SOME PEOPLE
JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE THREAT OF
"OKAY, YOU DON'T WANT
TO TELL US WHO YOU ARE.
"WE'RE JUST GONNA
TAKE A PHOTO OF YOU,
AND WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE
TO COMPARE."
AND THEN,
WHEN PEOPLE KIND OF REALIZE
THE TECHNOLOGY WE NOW HAVE,
THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO TELL US
THEIR REAL NAME AND THAT.
Pike: MORE AND MORE,
POLICE ARE USING BIOMETRICS --
BIOLOGICAL MARKERS FROM
FACE SCANS AND PALM PRINTS --
IN ADDITION TO FINGERPRINTS,
TO IDENTIFY SUSPECTS.
FINGERPRINTS THEMSELVES
HAVE BEEN REVOLUTIONIZED.
NOW THEY'RE TAKEN
ON A MOBILE SCANNER.
THEY'RE SENT
THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY
TO THIS HIGHLY SECURE
FBI COMPLEX IN WEST VIRGINIA.
McKinsey: THIS IS
NEXT GENERATION IDENTIFICATION.
Pike:
THESE SERVERS ARE THE HEART
OF THE FBI's NEXT GENERATION
IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM, OR NGI.
OFFICIALLY LAUNCHING
THIS SUMMER,
THE BILLION-DOLLAR PROGRAM
WILL ADD FACIAL SCANS
AND OTHER BIOMETRICS
TO THE EXISTING TROVE
OF 137 MILLION FINGERPRINTS.
THESE COMPUTERS ANALYZE
EACH FINGERPRINT AND PHOTO
THAT OFFICERS SEND.
McKinsey:
IT COMES TO THESE SERVERS,
AND THESE SERVERS
ACTUALLY DO THE SEARCHES --
ALL 137 MILLION OF THEM --
AND THEN IF THEY GET A HIT,
THEY GO DOWN
AND PICK SOME INFORMATION
OUT OF THE STORAGE
TO SEND THE CRIMINAL HISTORY
BACK TO THE QUERYING OFFICER.
Pike: THIS DATA CENTER RUNS
UP TO 160,000 SEARCHES A DAY.
McKinsey: IT'S A BIG ONE.
YOU CAN PICTURE IT AS BEING
A FOOTBALL FIELD ON TOP
OF ANOTHER FOOTBALL FIELD.
Pike: THE FBI HAS BEEN
COLLECTING FINGERPRINTS
SINCE THE EARLY 1900s.
PRINTS WERE ORIGINALLY CHECKED
BY HAND,
AND IT COULD TAKE MONTHS
TO FIND A MATCH.
NOW COMPUTERS DO THE SAME WORK
IN MINUTES.
BUT UNTIL RECENTLY,
THE FBI HAD NO EASY WAY
TO SEARCH PALM PRINTS
AND MUG SHOTS
TAKEN AT THE TIME OF ARREST.
THAT FRUSTRATED AGENTS
LIKE JEREMY WILTZ,
THE ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION SERVICES.
Wiltz: WE COULD DO VERY LITTLE
WITH THE MUG SHOTS THAT WE HAD.
IF WE WERE COLLECTING
PALM PRINTS,
WE COULD DO VERY LITTLE
WITH THOSE.
WE HAD NOTHING
THAT REALLY SEARCHED THOSE.
SO FOR UNSOLVED CRIMES,
YOU WOULD STRUGGLE TO BE ABLE
TO SEARCH THAT STUFF.
SO INSERT NGI.
Pike: ANY LOCAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER CONNECTED TO NGI
CAN SUBMIT AN IMAGE
AND GET A LIST OF FACES
WITH MATCHING FEATURES.
Wiltz: SO THESE WOULD BE THE
CANDIDATES THAT WOULD COME BACK.
Pike: THE FBI IS ALSO ADDING
IRIS SCANS TO THE DATABASE
BECAUSE EACH PERSON'S EYE
CONTAINS A UNIQUE PATTERN
THAT'S EASY TO CAPTURE.
FOR WILTZ, THE REAL VALUE OF NGI
IS SOLVING COLD CASES.
Wiltz: THINK ABOUT
HOW POWERFUL THAT IS.
I CAN'T WAIT TILL
THOSE SUCCESS STORIES COME OUT.
IT'S GONNA BE
WORTH ITS WEIGHT IN GOLD,
OF WHY WE DEVELOPED NGI.
Lynch: THE BIGGEST CONCERN
AND WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT NEXT GENERATION
IDENTIFICATION
IS THAT ANYBODY COULD END UP
BEING IN THAT DATABASE.
Pike:
JENNIFER LYNCH IS A LAWYER
WITH THE ELECTRONIC
FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
WHICH IS SUING THE FBI
TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT DATA
THE AGENCY IS COLLECTING.
Lynch:
THE WAY THAT NGI IS SET UP,
THE FBI HAS SAID,
IS THAT THEY'RE JUST INCLUDING
MUG SHOTS,
BUT THAT IS REALLY JUST A POLICY
THAT THE FBI HAS TAKEN.
THERE'S NO LAW THAT SAYS THAT
THEY HAVE TO LIMIT THE INCLUSION
OF IMAGES TO MUG SHOTS.
Pike: THE FBI ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT ITS FACIAL-RECOGNITION
SYSTEM
SOMETIMES FLAGS
THE WRONG PEOPLE.
15% OF THE TIME, THE SUSPECT
WON'T BE AMONG THE TOP 50 HITS.
Lynch: THOSE PEOPLE
WHOSE FACE IMAGES COME UP
SUDDENLY HAVE TO PROVE
THEIR INNOCENCE,
RATHER THAN THE GOVERNMENT
HAVING TO PROVE THEIR GUILT,
AND THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT,
AGAIN,
FROM HOW OUR DEMOCRACY
HAS BEEN SET UP.
Pike: PRIVACY ADVOCATES WORRY
THAT A GROWING WEB
OF TRAFFIC MONITORS,
LICENSE-PLATE READERS,
AND NETWORKED SECURITY CAMERAS
WILL SOON ALLOW POLICE
TO TRACK OUR EVERY MOVE --
ALL WITHOUT A WARRANT.
THE LEGAL ISSUES OVER HOW
THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED
AND WHO HAS ACCESS
TO ALL OF THIS INFORMATION
ARE FAR FROM SETTLED.
IN CALIFORNIA,
ONE OF 10 STATES THAT GUARANTEES
A RIGHT TO PRIVACY,
THE NEW TOOLS
POSE A CHALLENGE --
WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN
SAFER STREETS AND SPYING.
[ TELEPHONE RINGING,
RADIO CHATTER ]
AT A HIGH-TECH NERVE CENTER
IN LOS ANGELES,
POLICE GRAPPLE
WITH THIS QUESTION EVERY DAY.
Romero:
ABOUT 1,000 CAMERAS IN THE CITY
ARE FED AND MONITORED HERE,
MOSTLY
FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES.
Pike: CAPTAIN JOHN ROMERO
COMMANDS THE REAL-TIME ANALYSIS
AND CRITICAL RESPONSE DIVISION,
WHICH TRACKS CRIMES
ACROSS THE CITY,
WITH AN UP-TO-THE MINUTE MAP OF
EVERY INCIDENT THAT'S REPORTED.
Romero:
A SMALL PICTURE OF A BOMB
WOULD BE A BOMB CALL.
THE MASKS ARE ROBBERY CALLS.
THE FISTS ARE ASSAULT CRIMES.
Pike:
ROMERO SAYS NEW TECHNOLOGIES
ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT
TO DO PREDICTIVE POLICING,
DETERMINING WHEN AND WHERE
CRIMES ARE MORE LIKELY TO OCCUR.
AS PART OF A NEW INITIATIVE,
POLICE ALSO MONITOR PRIVATE
CAMERAS NEAR THE HOLLYWOOD SIGN
AND WARN OFF INTERLOPERS
THROUGH A SPEAKER.
Romero: THEY ARE TRESPASSERS,
AT THIS POINT.
Pike:
ROMERO BELIEVES THAT,
WHILE THE PUBLIC MAY BE UNEASY
ABOUT BEING WATCHED,
THEY'LL SOON SEE THE BENEFITS.
Romero:
IN EARLY AMERICA, WHEN WE
STARTED PUTTING UP STREETLIGHTS,
PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT THIS IS
THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO SEE
WHAT WE'RE DOING AT NIGHT
TO SPY ON US.
AND SO, OVER TIME,
THINGS SHIFTED,
AND NOW IF YOU TRIED
TO TAKE DOWN STREETLIGHTS
IN LOS ANGELES OR BOSTON
OR ANYWHERE ELSE,
PEOPLE WOULD SAY,
"NO, IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY.
"YOU'RE HURTING
OUR PUBLIC SAFETY
JUST SO YOU CAN SAVE MONEY
ON LIGHTING."
I THINK THAT THE CAMERAS
WILL EVENTUALLY GET THERE,
WHERE CAMERAS WILL NOT BE
A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE.
Pike: ACROSS TOWN,
SERGEANT DOUG IKETANI
OF THE L.A. COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
RECENTLY SUPERVISED
AN EXPERIMENT
INVOLVING CAMERAS
ON A WHOLE NEW LEVEL.
HE GAVE THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING
AN EXCLUSIVE ACCOUNT
OF THE TEST.
Iketani: THE SYSTEM
WAS KIND OF KEPT CONFIDENTIAL
FROM EVERYBODY IN THE PUBLIC.
A LOT OF PEOPLE
DO HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH THE EYE IN THE SKY --
THE BIG BROTHER --
SO IN ORDER TO MITIGATE
ANY OF THOSE KIND OF COMPLAINTS,
WE, BASICALLY,
KEPT IT PRETTY HUSH-HUSH.
Pike: THE ARRAY OF CAMERAS
ON THIS AIRCRAFT
RECORDS HIGH-RESOLUTION IMAGES
OF A 25-SQUARE-MILE AREA
FOR UP TO SIX HOURS.
IT CAN TRACK EVERY PERSON
AND VEHICLE ON THE GROUND,
BEAMING BACK THE PICTURES
IN REAL TIME.
IT'S CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE
ON AN UNPRECEDENTED SCALE.
McNutt:
WHAT WE ESSENTIALLY DO IS
A LIVE VERSION OF GOOGLE EARTH,
ONLY WITH
A FULL TiVo CAPABILITY.
IT ALLOWS US TO REWIND TIME
AND GO BACK AND SEE EVENTS
THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW OCCURRED
AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED.
Pike:
ROSS McNUTT IS THE PRESIDENT OF
PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS
IN DAYTON, OHIO,
ONE OF THE FEW COMPANIES
IN THE U.S.
THAT DOES
WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE.
McNutt: PROBABLY A LITTLE EASIER
TO FOLLOW, ISN'T IT?
Pike: McNUTT DEVELOPED A SIMILAR
SYSTEM IN THE AIR FORCE
THAT WAS USED
IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
McNutt: IT WAS AT THE HEIGHT
OF THE I.E.D. PROBLEM,
AND OUR OBJECTIVE WAS TO BE ABLE
TO FOLLOW THE BOMBERS
FROM WHERE THE BOMB WENT OFF
BACK TO THE HOUSE THAT THEY WERE
BUILDING THE BOMBS
AND BE ABLE TO USE THAT.
TOWARDS THE END OF THE TIME
WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS DEPLOYED,
WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID,
"HEY, THERE'S SOME REAL
LAW-ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS
TO THIS."
Pike: McNUTT HAS TESTED
THE TECHNOLOGY
IN PHILADELPHIA, BALTIMORE,
AND DAYTON,
WHERE HE SAYS IT PROVIDED POLICE
WITH USEFUL LEADS
ON SHOOTINGS, ARMED ROBBERIES,
AND NARCOTICS CASES.
THE L.A. COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
TESTED WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE
IN 2012
OVER COMPTON, A COMPACT CITY
WITH A HIGH CRIME RATE.
McNutt: WE LITERALLY WATCHED
ALL OF COMPTON
DURING THE TIMES
THAT WE WERE FLYING.
ANYWHERE WITHIN THAT WHOLE AREA,
WE CAN ZOOM DOWN,
LIVE OR AFTER THE FACT,
TO RESOLUTIONS JUST BARELY
TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW PEOPLE.
Iketani:
MY FIRST INITIAL THOUGHT
WAS LIKE "OH, BIG BROTHER.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE A CAMERA
FLYING OVER US."
BUT WITH
THE WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE,
YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY
TO SOLVE A LOT
OF THE UNSOLVABLE CRIMES
WITH NO WITNESSES,
NO VIDEOTAPE SURVEILLANCE,
NO FINGERPRINTS.
Pike:
FROM A MOBILE COMMAND CENTER,
McNUTT MONITORED 911 CALLS
AND COORDINATED
WITH OFFICERS ON THE GROUND.
McNutt: THERE HAD BEEN
A RASH OF CRIMES IN COMPTON
WITH PEOPLE
GETTING NECKLACES SNATCHED.
SO THE L.A. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
ASKED US TO INVESTIGATE THIS.
Iketani:
YEAH, I REMEMBER THIS CALL.
IT WAS BASICALLY
OUR TYPICAL MIDDLE-AGED WOMAN
WALKING DOWN THE STREET
WITH A FRIEND OF HERS
HAVING A CONVERSATION.
A YOUNG MALE APPROACHES HER.
AND AS HE'S JUST WALKING DOWN
THE STREET,
SHE THINKS HE'S JUST
A REGULAR PEDESTRIAN,
DOESN'T NOTICE ANYTHING
ABOUT HIM.
GRABS THE NECKLACE OFF OF
HER NECK, RUNS DOWN THE STREET.
[ SIREN WAILS ]
IN TRADITIONAL POLICING,
WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SOLVE
THESE TYPES OF CRIMES.
99% OF THE TIME,
WE'RE NOT GONNA FIND ANYBODY.
McNutt: WE WENT TO THE ADDRESS,
AND WE WATCHED IT,
AND WHAT WE SAW WAS SOMEBODY
GETTING OUT OF A CAR HERE.
AND THEN THE PERSON
WALKS DOWN THE STREET HERE,
WHILE THE CAR CIRCLES AROUND
TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK.
AND WHAT YOU HAVE IS A PERSON
WALKING DOWN THE ROAD THERE.
IN JUST A MOMENT HERE IS
WHERE THE NECKLACE IS STOLEN.
RIGHT THERE.
AND THEN THE PERSON'S
GONNA RUN OFF QUICKLY
TO GET INTO THE CAR,
BACK INTO THE CAR
THAT'S DRIVEN AROUND THE BLOCK.
AND THEN WE CAN
FOLLOW THAT PERSON OFF.
Pike: THE SYSTEM DOESN'T HAVE
THE RESOLUTION
TO IDENTIFY LICENSE PLATES
OR PEOPLE.
A PERSON IS JUST A PIXEL.
ANALYSTS TRACK THE CAR
AND RELY ON CAMERAS AT
TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR GAS STATIONS
TO CAPTURE A CLOSE-UP IMAGE.
IN THIS CASE,
THE SUSPECTS EVENTUALLY DROVE
OUT OF CAMERA RANGE
WITHOUT BEING IDENTIFIED.
BUT IKETANI SAYS
THE EXPERIMENT STILL GAVE POLICE
SOME VALUABLE LEADS.
Iketani: NOW WE KNOW THAT
THAT CAR WAS INVOLVED.
SO THAT WAY, OUR DEPUTIES CAN
START MONITORING THOSE STREETS.
MAYBE THEY WILL SEE THAT CAR
DRIVING BY
WITH THE TWO BAD GUYS IN THERE,
AND MAYBE WE CAN STOP THEM
AND ARREST THEM.
Pike:
SO FAR, NO POLICE DEPARTMENT
HAS PURCHASED THE SYSTEM.
IKETANI SAYS IT CAN'T PROVIDE
THE KIND OF DETAILED IMAGES
THAT WOULD HOLD UP IN COURT.
Iketani:
IT WAS A GREAT EXPERIMENT,
BUT IN THE END,
THE RESOLUTION
JUST WASN'T ENOUGH
FOR US TO USE IT HERE
ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.
Pike:
McNUTT BELIEVES THAT
PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE COULD
LEAD TO A LASTING DROP IN CRIME,
BUT ACKNOWLEDGES
PRIVACY CONCERNS.
WHAT HAPPENS
WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES?
IS THE FUTURE A PERMANENT RECORD
OF OUR EVERY MOVE?
McNutt:
THERE IS A TRADE-OFF
BETWEEN SECURITY
AND SOME ASPECTS OF PRIVACY.
BY THE FACT
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ABLE
TO PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION
AGAINST MULTIPLE CRIMES
PER MISSION
AND CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING
EVERYTHING FROM MURDERS
TO, IN THE CASE YOU SAW,
A NECKLACE SNATCH,
THAT ALLOWS US
TO PROVIDE MORE SECURITY
WITH LESS LOSS OF PRIVACY
THAN ANY OF THE OTHER OPTIONS
THAT ARE OUT THERE.
Pike: FOR NOW,
DEPUTIES ARE BACK TO PATROLLING
THE STREETS OF COMPTON
FROM THE GROUND.
BUT THEY SAY THAT
IF THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES,
THEY'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK
AT WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE.
Iketani:
I'M SURE THAT PEOPLE,
ONCE THEY FIND OUT
THAT THIS EXPERIMENT WENT ON,
THEY MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW,
A LITTLE UPSET,
BUT KNOWING THAT WE CAN'T SEE
INTO THEIR BEDROOM WINDOWS,
WE CAN'T SEE INTO THEIR POOLS,
WE CAN'T SEE INTO THEIR SHOWERS,
YOU KNOW, I'M SURE
THEY'LL BE OKAY WITH IT.
WITH THE AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY
OUT IN TODAY'S AGE,
WITH CAMERAS ON ATMs, AT EVERY
7-ELEVEN, EVERY SUPERMARKET,
PRETTY MUCH EVERY LIGHT POLE,
ALL THE LICENSE-PLATE CAMERAS,
THE RED-LIGHT CAMERAS,
PEOPLE HAVE JUST
GOTTEN USED TO BEING WATCHED,
FOR THE MOST PART.
[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]
Pike: BUT NOT EVERYONE.
THESE PROTESTERS IN OAKLAND FEAR
THAT POLICE WILL SOON BE ABLE
TO WATCH ANYONE, ANYTIME
WITH LITTLE OVERSIGHT.
Woman: JUST SAY "NO"!
JUST SAY "NO"!
Pike: FOR MONTHS,
THEY FOUGHT A PLAN TO CREATE
WHAT THEY CALLED
A CITYWIDE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM,
AN EXTENSIVE NETWORK
OF LIVE-CAMERA AND DATA FEEDS.
[ INDISTINCT SHOUTING ]
IN MARCH,
THEY CONVINCED THE CITY COUNCIL
TO SCALE BACK ITS PLANS --
FOR NOW.
Man:
DEMOCRACY IS WORTH IT!
Pike:
BUT AS POLICE EXPERIMENT
WITH EVER-MORE-SOPHISTICATED
TECHNOLOGIES,
THE DEBATE WILL CONTINUE
ON THE BALANCE
BETWEEN SECURITY AND PRIVACY
AND WHERE TO DRAW THAT LINE.
Vu: A KEY TOOL FOR SOLVING CRIME
USED TO BE EYEWITNESSES --
SOMEONE WHO SEES SOMETHING
WITH THEIR OWN EYES
AND DESCRIBES IT TO POLICE
OR IN COURT.
BUT AS WE JUST SAW,
ELECTRONIC EYES AND EARS
CAN CAPTURE MORE INFORMATION --
NOT JUST OF CRIMINALS,
BUT ALL OF US.
HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY,
AND AT WHAT COST?
SCOTT SHAFER TAKES IT FROM HERE.
Shafer: NEW AND EVOLVING
SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY --
WHAT DOES IT MEAN
FOR POLICE, PROSECUTORS,
AND LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
WORRIED ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY?
JOINING ME
TO DISCUSS THE IMPLICATIONS
ARE MIKE SENA, DIRECTOR
OF THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER,
DAVID GREENE,
SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY
AT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER
FOUNDATION,
AND JENNIFER GRANICK,
CIVIL LIBERTIES DIRECTOR
AT THE STANFORD CENTER
FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY.
WELL, LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU,
JENNIFER.
WE HEARD THAT SHERIFF'S DEPUTY
FROM LOS ANGELES SAYING
WE'RE ALREADY BEING ON-CAMERA
EVERYWHERE,
WITH ATMs AND RED-LIGHT CAMERAS,
FasTrak.
SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?
Granick:
WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS WHETHER ALL
THAT INFORMATION IS AGGREGATED
AND ONE PARTY --
IN THIS CASE, THE GOVERNMENT --
CAN GET AHOLD OF ALL OF THAT,
BECAUSE IT MEANS
THAT THEY KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT US
THAT WAS REALLY SOMETHING
THAT WAS NEVER RECORDED BEFORE,
OR EVEN WAS JUST RECORDED
FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES,
AND NOW IT CAN BE USED
FOR MORE GENERAL POLICING,
OR IT COULD BE ABUSED.
Shafer:
BUT FOR GENERAL POLICING,
ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING?
DON'T WE WANT TO BE SAFE?
Granick:
THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT
IF THERE'S LESS PRIVACY,
THERE'S AUTOMATICALLY
THIS UPTICK IN SECURITY
AND THAT PEOPLE WANT THAT.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST ASSUME
THAT WE'RE TRADING PRIVACY
FOR SECURITY EVERY TIME
AND PEOPLE LIKE IT.
IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT.
Shafer: WELL, MIKE SENA,
YOU'RE THE DIRECTOR
OF THIS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER,
THESE SO-CALLED FUSION CENTERS.
THERE ARE SIX OF THEM
IN CALIFORNIA.
YOU'RE CONSTANTLY IN TOUCH WITH
OTHER LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES,
SHARING INFORMATION,
COLLECTING INFORMATION.
WHAT'S THE BEST RATIONALE
FOR DOING THAT,
FOR COLLECTING ALL THIS DATA
AND KEEPING IT?
Sena: WELL,
THERE'S ALSO A MISPERCEPTION
ABOUT WHAT DATA
IS BEING COLLECTED,
HOW MUCH DATA THERE IS
OUT THERE.
WE HAVE PIECES OF DATA.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACROSS AMERICA,
THERE'S 18,000
LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
ALL USING DIFFERENT SYSTEMS.
SO OUR BIG FUNCTION,
FOR THE MOST PART,
IS TRYING TO COLLECT
WHAT LAW-ENFORCEMENT DATA
ALREADY EXISTS
AND BRING THAT INTO OUR CENTERS.
Shafer:
SO, WHAT'S THE MISPERCEPTION?
Sena: THAT WE HAVE ACCESS
TO THINGS LIKE THE FasTrak,
THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO CAMERAS
ALL OVER THE PLACE.
THERE REALLY AREN'T
THAT MANY CAMERAS,
AND THERE'S A MISPERCEPTION
OF WHAT THE EFFICIENCY IS
OF CAMERAS.
TECHNOLOGY ALONE
DOESN'T SOLVE ANY CRIMES.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF PEOPLE,
ANALYSTS, AND TECHNOLOGY,
BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE
ALL THOSE PIECES,
YOU CAN'T REALLY BRING THAT DATA
TOGETHER EFFICIENTLY.
Greene: I THINK WHAT WE HEARD
THE L.A. SHERIFF SAY WAS,
"WELL, PEOPLE HAVE CAMERAS
ON THEM ALL THE TIME.
IN A FEW YEARS,
THEY'RE NOT EVEN GONNA CARE,"
AND I ACTUALLY FIND THAT
VERY DISTURBING.
AND I DON'T KNOW
THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT THAT
AND THROW IN THE TOWEL AND SAY,
"WELL, WE HAVE CAMERAS ON US,
SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS
AT ALL."
Granick: THE THING
WE HAVE TO REALIZE IS THAT
CRIME IS NOT WHAT MOST OF US
ARE DOING MOST OF THE TIME.
MOST OF THE TIME,
WE'RE JUST LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS
GOING ABOUT OUR BUSINESS,
AND TO BE UNDER SURVEILLANCE ALL
THE TIME HAS A CHILLING EFFECT,
AS WE GO TO THE DOCTOR, AS WE GO
TO OUR CHURCHES OR MOSQUES,
AS WE INTERACT WITH OUR FRIENDS,
OR POLITICAL MEETINGS,
AND THEN
WHEN YOU SEE POPULATIONS
THAT ARE RECEIVING THE ATTENTION
OF EXTRA POLICING,
A LOT OF TIMES,
PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT.
YOU KNOW, OAKLAND DIDN'T WANT
THE DOMAIN AWARENESS PROGRAM.
NEW YORK CITY
HAD A LOT OF OPPOSITION
TO THE STOP-AND-FRISK.
Shafer: WELL, AND, MIKE SENA,
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
IS THERE AN ELEMENT OF PROFILING
THAT'S NECESSARY HERE?
Sena: NOT REALLY, YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE CRIME IS OFTEN --
IT'S RANDOM, YOU KNOW?
YOU HAVE NO CLUE
OF WHERE IT'S GONNA BE
OR WHAT CAMERAS
WILL BE ABLE TO COLLECT
THE INFORMATION YOU NEED.
YOU LOOK AT
THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING.
IF THOSE PRIVATE CAMERAS HADN'T
BEEN OPERATING AT THAT TIME,
THERE'S A GOOD POSSIBILITY
THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE FOUND OUT
WHO COMMITTED THAT CRIME.
Shafer: WHAT'S THE RISK --
AND I'LL PUT THIS TO ANYBODY --
OF THE WRONG PERSON
BEING FINGERED AS THE ASSAILANT?
Sena: IN THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY
THAT THEY DEMONSTRATED THERE,
OR ANY OF THE TYPE
OF TECHNOLOGIES THAT
THEY HAVE OUT THERE,
THEY AREN'T THE ONE THING THAT
SAYS, "THIS PERSON IS GUILTY."
AND IT'S UP TO THE PROSECUTOR
TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY,
"DO WE HAVE ENOUGH TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE PROSECUTION?"
IT'S UP TO A JUDGE AND A JURY
TO DECIDE
WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE.
Shafer: JENNIFER OR DAVID,
WHAT CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE
IN THAT REGARD --
ABOUT THE INNOCENCE?
Granick: WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS
I THINK IS REALLY DIFFERENT IS
WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING
INFORMATION AHEAD OF TIME,
WHEN THERE'S NO CRIME
WE KNOW THAT'S BEEN COMMITTED,
AND NOTHING'S HAPPENED,
AND THE GOVERNMENT'S
JUST COLLECTING INFORMATION,
JUST IN CASE.
THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE
FROM WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS,
LIKE THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING
AND YOU GO TO INFORMATION THAT'S
IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE PARTIES
THE GOVERNMENT GETS --
SOMETIMES WITH A WARRANT,
SOMETIMES
WITH OTHER LEGAL PROCESS --
AND THEN STARTS
TO PIECE THE CASE TOGETHER.
WE KNOW
SOMEONE'S DONE SOMETHING,
AND WE'RE LOOKING
FOR THAT PERSON.
Shafer: BUT IN THAT CASE,
YOU DID HAVE TO WATCH EVERYONE
TO LOOK FOR THE RIGHT PERSON.
Granick: WELL, NO,
BECAUSE THE BOMBING HAPPENED
AT A PARTICULAR LOCATION.
SO THEN YOU GET THE CAMERAS
FROM THAT LOCATION.
IT WASN'T THAT THERE WAS A PLANE
THAT WAS FLYING OVER
ALL OF BOSTON, ALL OF MIAMI,
ALL OF CHICAGO, ALL OF NEW YORK,
AND THEN WE WERE JUST SORT OF
LOOKING THROUGH THOSE PICTURES
OR KEEPING THEM, JUST IN CASE.
Shafer:
DAVID, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE,
IN YOUR MIND,
BETWEEN
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE,
WITH A LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
DOING SURVEILLANCE,
VERSUS GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK
AND LinkedIn
COLLECTING ALL THIS INFORMATION
WITH OR WITHOUT OUR KNOWLEDGE?
AND THEY'RE USING IT
TO MAKE MONEY.
THERE'S REALLY
NO PUBLIC PURPOSE.
IT'S JUST THE BOTTOM LINE,
IN THAT SENSE.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Greene: WELL, I THINK
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS THAT
WE HAVE A DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE GOVERNMENT --
AND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
IN PARTICULAR --
THAN WE DO
WITH OUR SEARCH ENGINE.
OUR RELATIONSHIP
WITH OUR GOVERNMENT, I THINK,
IS ONE OF NOT BEING WATCHED
BY THEM ALL THE TIME.
WHAT WE DO SEE
WITH GOOGLE AND YAHOO!
AND INTERNET-SERVICE PROVIDERS
IS, AT LEAST,
THE ABILITY TO TRY AND CONTROL.
IT MIGHT REQUIRE YOU TO BE A
KNOWLEDGEABLE CONSUMER TO DO SO,
BUT TO HAVE SOME CONTROL
OVER HOW MUCH
OF YOUR INFORMATION IS COLLECTED
AND WHAT USE IS MADE OF IT,
AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO OPT OUT OF THAT, AS WELL.
IT'S HARD TO OPT OUT
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Granick: THE INTERNET COMPANIES
ARE USING OUR INFORMATION
TO MARKET THINGS TO US.
THE POLICE ARE USING INFORMATION
TO PUT US IN JAIL.
Sena:
I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO DISAGREE.
OUR GOAL ISN'T
TO PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL,
BUT IT IS
TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND AS FAR AS THE GATHERING
OF INFORMATION AND WHAT WE DO,
AS FAR AS THE AGGREGATION
AND FOLLOW-UP,
IT ALSO HELPS US
TO IDENTIFY FOLKS
THAT HAVEN'T
BEEN ENGAGED IN CRIME,
ELIMINATING FOLKS
THAT COULD BE POTENTIAL SUSPECTS
WITH THE DATA
THAT WE'VE COLLECTED.
ME, AS A CITIZEN, AS WELL,
I DON'T NEED TO BE FOLLOWED
ALL DAY LONG,
AND THAT'S NOT THE ROLE
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
IT'S NOT TO FOLLOW FOLKS
ALL DAY LONG.
BUT THE TECHNOLOGY ACTS
AS A POINTER SYSTEM.
IT DOESN'T TELL YOU
THAT SOMEBODY COMMITTED A CRIME
SPECIFICALLY.
IT JUST POINTS
IN THAT DIRECTION.
Shafer:
HOW LONG IS THIS DATA KEPT?
Sena: PHOTOGRAPHY,
VISUAL COLLECTED DATA,
AUTOMATED
LICENSE-PLATE READERS --
IT'S 12 MONTHS.
THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT CODE
IN CALIFORNIA,
AT LEAST FOR VISUAL DATA.
Shafer: MIKE,
IS THERE A DIFFERENT STANDARD
FOR THIS SURVEILLANCE
AND PRIVACY,
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SAY,
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM,
VERSUS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT,
WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE
WHO SNATCHED A PURSE?
Sena:
THERE ARE RULES REGARDING THE
WAY INTELLIGENCE IS COLLECTED,
THE WAY INFORMATION IS COLLECTED
IN THE COUNTRY.
AND AFTER SEPTEMBER 11th,
THERE WERE FOLKS
THAT ACTUALLY WANTED TO GET RID
OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY STATE
AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT --
FOLKS THAT I REPRESENT --
THAT SAID,
"NO, WE NEED TO KEEP THIS."
OUR ROLE AS PUBLIC SAFETY
AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC,
BUT ALSO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES.
Shafer: JENNIFER,
WHAT WOULD YOU ADD TO THAT?
Granick:
I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY,
I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY
OUR COURTS AND OUR INVESTIGATORS
ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION IN MY MIND
THAT LAW-ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SHARING INFORMATION PROPERLY
CAN HELP SOLVE CRIMES.
I THINK THE HARD QUESTION IS
WITH SOMETHING LIKE CAMERAS.
YOU HAVE THIS ABILITY
TO FOLLOW PEOPLE AROUND
ON THE PUBLIC STREETS.
TRADITIONALLY, THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT DIDN'T PROHIBIT
A SINGLE POLICE OFFICER
FROM FOLLOWING YOU,
BUT IT WAS JUST INFEASIBLE
FOR EVERYONE TO BE FOLLOWED
ALL THE TIME.
NOW WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT
MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO SEE
WHERE EVERY CAR
OR WHERE EVERY PERSON --
OR ALMOST EVERY PERSON -- IS.
Shafer: MIKE.
Sena: LAW ENFORCEMENT
DOESN'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY
TO TRACK PEOPLE
24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK.
YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY
ISN'T QUITE THERE.
Granick: YET.
Sena: THERE ARE THINGS
IN THOSE VIDEOS AND PICTURES.
AND, FOR ME,
EVEN A PERSON THAT HAS WORKED
IN THE TECHNOLOGY FIELD
WITH THE FOLKS
THAT ARE DESIGNING THINGS
AND WHATEVER THE FEATURE MAY BE,
I DON'T SEE THAT IN MY CAREER.
Greene: WE KNOW THAT LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTUALLY HAS
THE TECHNOLOGICAL CAPABILITY OF
ACTUALLY TRACKING MOBILE PHONES,
AS YOU WALK AROUND
WITH YOUR MOBILE PHONE,
EVEN IF YOUR PHONE IS OFF.
Shafer: WE'VE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS
AND SOME OF THE RISKS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS.
TO WHAT EXTENT
DO THE LAWS NEED TO BE UPDATED?
I MEAN, TECHNOLOGY IS CHANGING
SO QUICKLY.
IS IT POSSIBLE
FOR THE LAW TO KEEP UP?
Granick: YEAH, I'M A LAWYER,
SO I LIKE TO BELIEVE IT'S
POSSIBLE FOR THE LAW TO KEEP UP,
BUT WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
YOU KNOW, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
NEEDS TO CATCH UP,
BECAUSE WHAT IS OUR PRIVACY
IN PUBLIC SPACES
WHEN WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY
THAT CAN MONITOR US
TO SUCH A MUCH GREATER EXTENT?
WE HAVE THIS AGE OF BIG DATA,
WHERE DATA ANALYSIS
CAN PUT THESE PIECES TOGETHER
AND FIND OUT
SO MUCH MORE ABOUT US
THAN ANY INDIVIDUAL PIECE
WE MIGHT GIVE UP
OR CHOOSE TO SHARE.
Shafer:
MIKE SENA, YOU WERE NODDING
WHEN JENNIFER WAS SAYING
WE NEED TO UPDATE THE LAWS,
SO YOU AGREE?
Sena:
OH, ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE.
WE DEFINITELY NEED
TO KEEP THE LAWS UP TO SPEED
ON WHAT WE'RE DOING,
BUT IT'S HARD,
AND IT'S NOT JUST
WHAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING.
IT'S WHAT THE CRIMINAL GROUPS
ARE DOING WITH TECHNOLOGY,
WHICH IT'S HARD FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO KEEP PACE.
WE'RE ALWAYS BEHIND
IN THAT REALM.
Shafer: DAVID,
WHAT SHOULD LOCAL COMMUNITIES,
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
AND CITIZENS --
WHAT SHOULD THEY
BE THINKING ABOUT?
WHAT QUESTIONS
SHOULD THEY BE ASKING?
Greene:
WELL, I THINK A GOOD QUESTION
TO ASK, REALLY, IS
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENRY?
AND, TO ME, A GOVERNMENT REALLY
SHOULD BE REALLY HESITANT
TO ENTER INTO A RELATIONSHIP
WHERE IT'S JUST CONSTANTLY
COLLECTING INFORMATION.
I THINK IT'S VERY EASY --
WHAT I'VE SEEN --
YOU SEE IT WITH THE N.S.A., AND
YOU SEE IT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL --
IS THAT HAVING THE ABILITY
TO COLLECT INFORMATION --
IT SEEMS INNOCUOUS
AND IT SEEMS EASY --
IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO STOP.
Shafer: AND, MIKE SENA,
FROM SOMEONE FROM THE INSIDE
OF THIS KIND OF AN OPERATION,
WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU ASK
OF THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE OVERSEEING WHAT YOU DO?
Sena:
YOU KNOW, THE HARD PART IS
THAT EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY
IN PUBLIC SPACES.
WHAT IS THAT?
AND, REALLY,
THE BIGGER PART OF THIS --
AND SOMETHING
THAT I'M A BIG ADVOCATE FOR --
IS BUILDING COMMUNITIES
OF TRUST,
ACTUALLY HAVING CONVERSATIONS
WITH COMMUNITIES.
Shafer: JENNIFER,
IS THERE ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY
TO EVEN KNOW WHAT
THE RIGHT QUESTIONS TO ASK ARE?
Granick: AT THIS POINT IN TIME,
WE HAVE ALMOST NO RULES
ABOUT HOW INFORMATION IS USED
OR DISSEMINATED,
AND HOW DO WE TELL
IF IT'S WORTH IT?
WE NEED TO KEEP TRACK OF ABUSES,
KEEP TRACK OF SUCCESSES
IN FIGHTING CRIME,
AND HAVE A SENSE
OF WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO
WHERE WE CAN ENHANCE
THE PUBLIC SAFETY MISSION
WITHOUT OVER-POLICING.
Shafer: LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
WE JUST TOUCHED THE SURFACE.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
MIKE SENA, JENNIFER GRANICK,
DAVE GREENE, THANKS A LOT.
All: THANK YOU.
Vu:
AS TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES,
THE STRUGGLE TO FIND BALANCE
BETWEEN PRIVACY AND SECURITY
WILL PLAY OUT
IN UNEXPECTED WAYS.
IT'S CLEAR THE DEBATE
AND DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE.
I'M THUY VU.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
Narrator:
FUNDING FOR THIS PROGRAM
IS PROVIDED BY
THE GRUBER FAMILY FOUNDATION
AND BY THE MEMBERS OF KQED.
A CO-PRODUCTION OF KQED
AND THE CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.
