Rethinking Surveillance

New surveillance technologies, meanwhile, are emerging at a dizzying pace. The blurry videotape scenes of convenience store robberies are rapidly being replaced by crystal-clear video digitally recorded on computer hard drives.

As the number of cameras watching us grows, the surveillance industry is wrestling with the emerging problem of an overabundance of images and properly controlling their distribution. Software that highlights suspicious images can help sort through video. However, federal government leadership is necessary to provide guidance in managing and securing these images.

For an example of how such legislation could work, Congress need only look to Britain. In response to a wave of Irish Republican Army terrorism in the 1970s, closed-circuit cameras were deployed throughout the country, making Britain the world leader in video surveillance. Today, there are more than 4 million such cameras in use there, according to British government figures.

Britain's experience has been helped by legislation passed 10 years ago that put public surveillance under national control. The Data Protection Act of 1998 set clear and consistent guidelines for video monitoring of public spaces, and created the information commissioner's office as the regulatory authority. A code of practice established privacy principles, provided guidelines for safeguarding the use of video images and gave industry a framework for doing business.

The British government also created a partnership between the criminal justice system, local police forces, government departments, the closed-circuit television industry and the Home Office (similar to our Department of Homeland Security) that resulted in a consensus on how and when video surveillance should be used in public spaces.

In the United States, we have a high regard for personal privacy. There are laws to ensure the privacy of medical, credit and tax records. And yet, video surveillance remains largely unregulated. This lack of a national strategy will inevitably result in an incident in which an individual's rights are compromised, or evidence of a significant crime is disallowed in court.

Surveillance technologies will continue to gain in capability -- and become more intrusive. Issues of privacy and public surveillance may appear vexing, but the United States must move forward with laws to effectively adapt to the inevitable spread of this technology. If the public is to trust business and government to watch over us, we need to follow the lessons of Britain and protect video images as we do other private data.

Frank Baitman is president of Petards, the Baltimore-based subsidiary of Britain-based Petards Group, a developer of advanced surveillance systems with installations throughout the Washington region and in more than 40 countries.