Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Detective, ACLU Rep Debate Practice of Linking Street Cameras to Identifying Computers in Tampa

Aired July 05, 2001 - 10:47   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.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: The city of Tampa, Florida, is keeping a close eye on its citizens these days, and it's causing some controversy. People who visit a popular entertainment district there, Ybor City, are being closely watched by cameras.

That part's been actually happening for some time, but now those cameras have a new kind of software that allows police quickly to compare faces to a profile of wanted criminals.

Police say the tool is a big help. Others say there is a window for Big Brother there.

Joining us now are two men, on different sides on the issue: Detective Bill Todd with the Tampa Police Department and Howard Simon, executive director of the Miami American Civil Liberties Union.

Gentlemen, good morning. Thanks for joining us.

DET. BILL TODD, TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT: Good morning.

HOWARD SIMON, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION: Good morning.

Detective Todd, we'll start with you. As we said, the cameras aren't new, but there is new software that allows you to have a more advanced purpose to these cameras. How does that work?

TODD: The software takes the images that the camera catches, and it compares the facial images to images in the database, of missing children and felons that are currently wanted.

KAGAN: This sounds similar to what you guys did at the Super Bowl.

TODD: Exactly.

KAGAN: How did it work there?

TODD: At Super Bowl, we got 19 matches. They were unconfirmed, but we're looking for big things from the software.

KAGAN: Why do you think it's necessary in Ybor City to do this? How is it going to help you do your job? TODD: In Ybor City, on weekend nights, we get large crowds of people -- upwards to 150,000 people. This will allow us to be more efficient in monitoring the crowds and, hopefully, preventing trouble before it happens.

KAGAN: Can you see the idea of the feelings that people might have, detective, that this is just kind of creep, the idea that the police are using cameras to take your picture?

TODD: Well, certainly, we're sensitive to people's issues on their privacy, but it's important to point out that if the image is captured and it's not in the database, it's immediately discarded, so there is no logged history of their presence.

KAGAN: So you're not saving these pictures?

TODD: That's correct.

KAGAN: All right.

Howard, let's bring you in -- Howard Simon with the ACLU. Is it possible that the ACLU would see this as beyond creepy, and perhaps illegal?

SIMON: Yes, I think it raises very significant constitutional issues. Look, I guarantee you, three years from now, we'll be sitting around having the same conversation talking about the Supreme Court decision that requires the police do this only with a warrant. If last week the U.S. Supreme Court said you can't fly over people's homes and use thermal imaging technology without a warrant, if you can't stop people on the street who are not suspected of doing anything wrong and ask them to come in for the lineup or to search them to see if they have drugs without a warrant, then I don't think that you can take pictures of people's faces and run it through the computerized police lineup without a warrant as well.

KAGAN: But Howard, let me just pose this to you. What's different than Detective Todd putting one of his officers on a street corner holding mug shots. You don't need a warrant to do that. Maybe this is just helping the police do their job.

SIMON: I think you're right. The police officer on the beat looking for people that they may recognize is probably permissible, since you don't have an expectation of privacy walking the streets. But it's a lot different when they take your picture and run it through a computerized police lineup, comparing it to a database of 30,000 people. That's a lot different.

Look, you can't drag somebody off of the street and say we don't suspect you of anything, but would you come into the police station so we can put you in a lineup. You can't do that physically, and if you can't do it physically, then you can't do it by computer either, just because the computer happens to bypass the requirement of asking the person for consent.

KAGAN: Detective, back to you. Should people have a general feeling that they do have a right to privacy when they step out to go to a very public place, like Ybor City?

TODD: Well, the courts have held that you don't have an expectation of privacy on a public street. And it was a good analogy and one that I've used before: This is really no different than a police officer looking at the people on the street and comparing it to photographs in his possession of people they're looking for.

In addition to felons, we're looking for missing children that come to the area to party, and it's our hopes that this will allow us to locate them easier and more profitably in these large crowds and return them home safely.

KAGAN: And we should point out that it's just been a few days since you've started using the software in Tampa -- is that correct?

TODD: Yes.

KAGAN: And you're going to use it for a year and then assess how it works out.

TODD: That's correct.

KAGAN: Here's an idea. Why don't we have you gentleman back in a year, and we talk about the benefits of the privacy versus a new law enforcement tool.

Detective Bill Todd from the Tampa Police Department and Howard Simon from the ACLU, thanks for discussing us for this discussion. I appreciate it.

TODD: Thank you.

SIMON: Thank you.

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