Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Crossfire

Should Government Cameras Photograph People in Public Spaces?

Aired August 17, 2001 - 19:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Tonight, cameras may be watching you at the traffic light, nightclub and even the ball-game. Is this anything to smile about, or has big brother overstepped his bounds?

ANNOUNCER: From Washington, CROSSFIRE.

On the left, Bill Press. On the right, Robert Novak. In the CROSSFIRE, in Dallas, Texas, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and in New York, Raymond Kelly, former New York City police commissioner.

NOVAK: Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

On the old TV show, people filmed without their knowledge or permission were told, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera"!

Well, now days the average American is filmed every day for security purposes by a variety of cameras without being told, and nobody is smiling. Now there are secret cameras in over 50 American cities, first to catch drivers running red lights, and now to enforce speeding laws.

Some 11 states have barred the red light cameras or have laws that prevent them. And the backlash against them rose recently when the Washington, D.C. city government installed electronic snoops. And this is one time many Congressmen don't like being photographed. Majority Leader Armey has elevated the debate by opposing the cameras on constitutional grounds. Why install big brother in Americas cities? Is it to save lives or just pick up additional government revenue? -- Bill.

BILL PRESS, CO-HOST: Congressman Armey, let me understand, every day driving around Washington, D.C., I see some idiot running a red light, putting other lives at risk. Why are you standing up for these guys?

REP. DICK ARMEY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: I'm not standing up for them. I think there should be a policeman on the intersection, he ought to be apprehended, he ought to be properly identified. His rights ought to be respected, and he ought to be arrested and cited. I don't believe that the camera gives me an increased safety. But what it does give me is a violation of my rights, my privacy rights as a citizen, and I have to tell you I've studied this deployment across the nation. I think it's all about the money, not about traffic safety for me and my family. NOVAK: Ray, you, in your illustrious career as a law enforcement officer, you've arrested a lot of people, have most recently been dealing with smugglers, do you think the same tactics should be applied to a guy who might fudge on a red light, that he should be treated just like a common criminal, photographed?

RAYMOND KELLY, FORMER NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think it's an intelligent use of technology, Bob. It saves lives. It's preventing accidents. It's not how we treat smugglers. It is, again, an effort to use effectively resources that are available to police departments.

Again, it's shown that there has been a 40 percent decrease at most intersections where these cameras are used. People accept them. Surveys have shown that the public on a two-to-one basis accepts red light cameras. They're working, let's keep it. Let's not tinker with it, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There probably is some adjustments that have to be made as far as surveillance cameras, but this, this technology is working.

PRESS: Congressman Armey, you said something a little while ago that you and I both know is impossible, you can't have a cop at every intersection in any American city. And we've got cameras in 7-11's, Congressman, cameras in the banks, cameras at the ATMs to prevent a theft. Why not have a camera at a street corner to save lives?

ARMEY: Well, first of all, let me just tell you, first of all, you don't have a camera at every corner, either. And if you look at the manner in which they deploy these cameras, they put them on downhill intersections, irrespective of whether there has been a high violation of incidents or any traffic problem.

And I disagree with Ray. There have been no demonstrations of improved safety as a result of the deployment of these cameras. The only thing you've demonstrated is increased revenue to the cities that deploy them and the commercial firm that deploys and runs them. While there have in fact been some demonstrations of increased traffic accidents as a result of their deployment.

PRESS: Well, Congressman, the chief of police of Washington, D.C., Terrance Gainer, has said that since they put these cameras up, the running of red lights has decreased, has been cut by 65 percent. The number of fatalities in this district has been cut by 85 percent. Are you saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?

ARMEY: I'm saying I don't believe that. I'd like to see the data. Anyplace else they have tried to make these arguments, they've never been able to put the data out there that support that. I'd consider that an assertion on his part and I doubt that he could put the data out there that will prove that point to be the case. And he could have done better if he had simply increased the yellow light, the length of yellow light. They've done it -- in every place they've done that, they've found that they get better results.

(CROSSTALK) NOVAK: Surely, Surely, Ray Kelly, you don't approve of the shortening of the time of the yellow light, because that's what they've done, with the red cameras, all over the country, to get more arrests. They shorten the yellow light and they say, got you.

KELLY: You know, I can only talk about New York. The -- on the streets where the average speed is 45 miles or less, which is the vast majority of streets in New York City, the yellow light lasts for four seconds. It's been like that since there's been yellow lights. You had to know that to give summonses, and I knew that years ago.

So, if there is tinkering going on, I don't know about it. I don't know of civil servants, that I'm aware of, that are particularly interested in tinkering with that to make money for their employer.

NOVAK: All right. Mr. Kelly...

(CROSSTALK)

ARMEY: ... just make this point. It is not the civil servants that install, operate and read the results of the red light. It is a private subcontracted firm in most instances. And that, again, do you subcontract law enforcement to a profit maximizing firm? I don't think you do it in any other instance of law enforcement.

NOVAK: Mr. Kelly...

KELLY: I don't know any police chief, and there's several of them who've commented on this issue, who has said anything about or agreed to tampering with the time that the yellow light stays on.

I can tell you that law enforcement supports this -- the use of these red light cameras. The fraternal order of police, representing 297,000 police officers support it. Police chiefs around America think it's an intelligent way to save lives.

NOVAK: Mr. Kelly, let me give you some data that I think is unchallenged by anybody. It came out of your administration, the Clinton administration, the Department of Transportation in 1999, and I think it tends to show that they put the cameras, the red light cameras in Washington, not for safety reasons, not because there was a need, because they wanted money.

Now, let's take a look at just some comparative cities with Washington. New Orleans, Phoenix, Nashville and Detroit all have twice as high a rate per capita of traffic deaths in 1999 as Washington. New Orleans: 17, Phoenix: 16, Nashville: 16, Detroit 16, Washington: 7. Because I drive every day in Washington. People are very law abiding here. They put this in here to get money.

KELLY: It doesn't mean that you shouldn't make efforts to make it safer.

I can tell you in New York City there are high hazard intersections, and that's where those cameras went. It has nothing to do about making money, here. And, again, I don't know the employees that are interested in jacking up the revenues of their employers, not in a public service sector.

PRESS: Now, Congressman, I happen to have more time on my hands than I should have today, so I actually read your study, and I, you know, I think you would have been better off, Congressman, driving around the city than writing this study.

I mean, you ask the question, "why are there suddenly so many more people running red lights"? And here is what your executive summary -- here's how you and your executive summary answer that question: "The answer seems to be that changes made to accommodate camera enforcement have produced yellow light times that in many cases are shortened to the point that they are inadequate."

Congressman, you're blaming the yellow light. You're not blaming the drivers who are gunning through the yellow light.

ARMEY: Let me just tell you this, we have watched the protocols for intersection traffic safety across the nation. We had a light that was generating enough dough to finance the whole police department in San Diego. They cut -- they increased the yellow light to one-and-a-half seconds in addition to that, made to put that camera out of business.

The fact of the matter is, this is an intrusion against people's rights and I'd like to get to this point; Ray said that they don't disregard the rights of smugglers. No, they don't. And I have to tell you, if I'm driving my car from work, I've got as much right to be, have my rights under the law respected as a smugger. And these things are an intrusion against our rights. They put us in police lineups, like they did the "snooper bowl" -- everybody went to the Super Bowl was in a police lineup. What right do they have to do that? The yellow light is not appropriate law enforcement tool.

PRESS: Well, Congressman, I'm with you on the snooper things at the Super Bowl games, but I want to come back to this yellow light thing, because I -- you lost me there. Look, wouldn't you have to agree that it doesn't matter how long the yellow light is. There are a lot of drivers who, when they see yellow, yellow says step on the gas.

ARMEY: I understand that...

PRESS: Yeah!

ARMEY: ... but why not, then, have an policeman on the beat...

PRESS: Because there aren't enough to...

ARMEY: ... that stops him and gets him off the street. Look, hey, if I am that kind of driver, how many intersections am I going to blast through between now, when you take my picture, and two weeks from now, when it shows up at my house? And, if I've got any brains at all, and I probably do, I'd just go tell the judge I wasn't in that car at that time. Let them prove I was there. And the judge will throw it out of court.

(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Can I just say that it's a very difficult offense to enforce. The courts say that you have to be in the same position as a driver to give a red light summons. In other words, you have to be behind the driver. You can't be on the side. You can't be facing the light. So, that means that there is a chase involved; short, most of them, but others could be certainly dangerous to civilians, dangerous to the police officers. It just is a smart way to do business.

And clearly, there's not enough police officers to go around to be at these high hazard intersections.

NOVAK: Ray Kelly, in Washington, a lot of Congress, members of Congress of both parties have used two words in describing these cameras: big brother. 1984. George Orwell. And I'd like to read to you the response by A.M. Jayocks, the chief of police of Virginia Beach, Virginia, who wants to buy these cameras, and here was his answer: "If it is big brother, it's big brother watching out for you."

Is that what we've come to in this country? That big brother watching out for you is a justification?

KELLY: No, but I think there is something between big brother and guardian angel, if you will. I think, again, there has to be some community input as to how these are used, but I don't see this as a violation of privacy.

You know, there's a famous Supreme Court case, Katz versus the United States in, I think, it was 1967, and it talks about a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact of the matter is, when you're driving in your car, you give up certain rights. It's a privilege. You don't have a reasonable expectation of keeping your license plate number private or privileged. I don't see it as a violation at all of privacy.

ARMEY: But, Ray, you just got done describing more due processes is left to me under the law if there is a real live police officer there than what I get if they deploy a dumb camera.

So, what they need to do is to bring the law up-to-date and say, Dick Armey, if you get tagged going through a red light by a real live person, you will have the same due process as you have if you get tagged by a camera that is dumb as a stone, doesn't do a thing but shoot a picture of your license plate.

I have to tell you, quite frankly, guys, if -- Bill, if I was caught outside your studio beating you with a club, you would be the first one to come out of your coma and insist that my rights be honored as they arrested me.

PRESS: That is indeed true. But, I want you to explain, when we get back, where in the Constitution gives you the right to go 100 miles an hour through an intersection when the light is yellow. With that challenge, gentlemen, the light is red right now. We're going to take a break, and when we come back let's also talk about who gets all the money? Where is all the money going from all of these fines from all of these cameras? More CROSSFIRE coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PRESS: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE.

All right, let's be honest, once in awhile everybody goes a little bit over the speed limit, while looking out for cops in the rearview mirror. But speeding may no longer be so easy to get away with. If cameras are installed on roads and freeways, you may soon get your personal photograph in the mail along with a speeding ticket, of course. Is this fair? Is this an invasion of privacy, or just smart use of technology? And where is all the money going?

Our debate over law enforcement cameras continues with House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, joining us from Dallas, and Raymond Kelly, former New York City police commissioner, now head of global security for Bear Stearns, who is in New York -- Bob.

NOVAK: Ray Kelly, you seemed honestly offended by the notion that this is being done as a revenue measure, but let me give you a few points I would like you to respond to on the cameras that are being installed in the District of Columbia.

The authorities here in D.C. predict that in one year they will produce $160 million. That may not mean much for New York, but it's a lot for little D.C., and the most interesting thing is out of that $160 million, $41 million are kicked back, kicked back, to the firm that's installing the equipment. Is that any way to run a police force?

KELLY: Well, I think -- you have to go through the red light to get fined, so the revenue is a by-product of it. I think the purpose of these cameras is to act as a deterrent. I think there should be lots of signs up saying, hey, this intersection has cameras. If you go through it, you're going to get a ticket.

Yes, revenue is going to be generated by it. If, in effect that's the reason for it, then I think that is wrong. But that's not the way law enforcement thinks. I think that's not the way most government officials think. I could be wrong.

I just want to point out one thing, though. Congressman Army said something about due process. You can plead not guilty to these summonses. You can go to court just like on another summons that you might get. In the state of Virginia, in fact, you can send in an affidavit with evidence that says -- affidavit under oath, that you weren't driving the car.

So, there are ways of pleading not guilty. There are ways of getting full due process, if you will, with -- when you are subjected to summonses as a result of these cameras.

NOVAK: Let me take this question of the revenue thing and I'll let it go at that, but I've got one more question for you, Ray. In the District of Columbia in one year there were 10,000 speeding summons issued. 10,000 for the year. Under this system, they are going to issue 80,000 speeding summonses a month. 80,000 a month. That's a tremendous increase. And that looks to me like the old deal we used to know about in the -- I grew up in the Chicago area, speed traps. Those are called speed traps. Trying to catch somebody, not to control speeding but for revenue.

KELLY: Well, you would hope that this would act as a deterrent, that that 80,000 number would go down. And, again, I think you need lots of advertising, lots of signs. The principle purpose of this should be deterrence, not revenue generation.

PRESS: Congressman Armey, you've raised several times tonight the question of violation of our Constitutional rights. Now, Congressman, I'm a civil libertarian, proud of it. I am proud to welcome you to the ranks of civil libertarians, but I think you may be off the base asserting the fourth amendment in this case. I want to read you a quote, if I can, by Mark Maddox, he's the head of Lockheed Martin, the division...

ARMEY: That's the company that's getting rich off the cameras.

PRESS: ... the division which makes these cameras. So, of course he's got a certain bias. I was going to add that.

NOVAK: A certain bias?

PRESS: I think his point is absolutely right on. Here is what he says, quote: "You have someone driving down a public thorough-way, licensed by the government, who is actually only having his picture taken if he violates the law, and how you can extrapolate any kind of privacy issue is a stretch. By the same definition, you wouldn't be able to use a picture from a bank camera against somebody who robs a bank."

Come on, Congressman. The fourth amendment has got nothing to do with this.

ARMEY: Well, let me just -- well, let's take a look at that. If, in fact, I'm driving down the road, if I'm stopped by a policeman and if I am properly identified, they get my name, see my license, see who I am, and issue me a citation, I sign right there on the spot and say I received this citation. I have been properly identified. I have faced my accuser. I know that I have in fact been cited and I go about my business.

Now, in this case, I don't face my accuser, it's a dumb camera sitting there. It's got nothing but a picture of my license and, Ray, this will break your heart. In some states now they are so committed to the revenue possibilities from this that they're actually telling people that you are guilty of being in that car unless you prove who other than yourself was in the car. So, what they're saying is unless you are going to rat out your family, your friends or whomever might have been driving the car, you are proven -- it is not enough for you to prove, or, for you to say to the state, "prove it was me." Now the state says, "you prove who it was if you contend it wasn't you."

Now, how is that for your rights being respected under the law?

PRESS: But, what right do you have to run through a red light at an intersection? What right do you have to go to the National Airport at 100 miles an hour?

ARMEY: I do not have a right to do any of those things, but I do have a right to expect that if I am guilty of this violation of the law, that I be properly apprehended, that my rights be respected, and that indeed I get a citation on the spot. You want to talk about a deterrent, stop me on the spot. Don't send me a note two months later or two weeks later, and say, oh, by the way, two weeks ago you were speeding on George...

NOVAK: Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.

KELLY: Again, this is just smart use of technology. You don't have enough policemen at all, anywhere, to do that type of enforcement. We all drive on the streets every day. We see these violations with great consistency. Hopefully, using these cameras over time will reduce people's willingness to go through red lights.

NOVAK: Ray Kelly, let me give you a flesh and bones example of what the Congressman was talking about. Last year, I was in Los Angeles on the way to the CNN studios, going on Sunset Boulevard. Two months later, two months later I get a envelope with a summons, a huge fine, a picture of my license plate, said I went through a red light. I don't think I went through any red light. But, how in the world can I even go to court 3,000 miles away and plead my case when I can't even remember what I did two months ago? Is that any way to run a police force?

KELLY: Well, as I say, in Virginia there are ways of sending an affidavit. In other states, there are also ways of pleading not guilty. A two month gap, obviously, creates problems. But, I think law enforcement and municipalities are aware of this face and they are making avenues available for you to plead not guilty.

NOVAK: Commissioner Ray Kelly, we miss you in Washington. Thank you for coming in. Majority Leader Dick Armey, come back quickly from your recess. Thank you for coming in. And that civil libertarian, Bill Press, and I will have closing comments in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Bill, I want you to take your American Civil Liberty Union card out of your wallet, tear it up, because you are no civil libertarian. But, I always knew that liberals like you, you really like big brother better than you like individual freedom.

PRESS: Let me tell you something, Bob, if you hadn't run that red light in Los Angeles, you would not have gotten that ticket. So, why don't you just fess up, pay the $50 bucks and be thankful that, you know, you're not going to do that so much anymore and maybe a life will be saved.

NOVAK: You know something, you'd do very well in a police state. And you may find out soon, because we're becoming a police state.

PRESS: Bob, if you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about the camera. Wouldn't you admit to that?

NOVAK: Thank you, mein heir.

PRESS: There you go. From the left, I'm Bill Press. Drive safely. Good night from CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: On the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com