A
Conversation
with
Norman
Siegel,
Executive
Director
of
the
New
York
Civil
Liberties
Union
2/6/98
Norman Siegel, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and organizer of the Washington Square Park protest, spoke with The Week Online. WOL: Mayor Giuliani is obviously a strong supporter of the use of video surveillance of public spaces as an appropriate means of fighting crime. You obviously don't agree. NS: We (the NYCLU) oppose surveillance cameras in Washington Square Park because it raises the Orwellian spectre of Big Brother government spying and compiling video records of the free movements of citizens. WOL: Have you gotten any response from the city to your opposition? NS: As a result of the protest we've gotten verbal assurances from the city that these tapes will be erased after seven days, assuming that no criminal activity is revealed. We haven't seen that in writing. But some would say, and I don't disagree, that that's not enough -- that it's naive to think that the tapes won't at some point be used improperly. WOL: The Giuliani administration has been very vocal about their intention to conduct a "zero-tolerance" war on drugs in their second term. The cameras in the park are a very visible part of that campaign. What are your thoughts on that? NS: Well, the primary concern of the NYCLU in this case is certainly the cameras themselves, and all that they imply. But as you begin to examine the lengths to which the police must go to control even the smallest of marijuana transactions, which is the specific purpose of the cameras in Washington Square, you come to the point where you must begin to ask whether this is the way we ought to be spending our resources. The drug war, it seems, leads almost inevitably down this path. WOL: Surveillance cameras were first used in New York in public housing projects. How did that come about? NS: The cameras were first installed in the Grant Houses in Harlem in July of '97. There was a tenant meeting, of sorts, put together by the city. The problem was that that meeting wasn't publicized -- no notices were put under doors, none of the normal steps were taken to insure that people knew about it -- and only 75 people were in attendance out of about 4,000 residents. Somewhere between thirty and forty percent of those in attendance were opposed to the plan, and based upon that single meeting, with no other input, and no safeguards in place for how the videos would be used, the plan went into effect. WOL: So, in your opinion, the decision-making process itself is inadequate. NS: Absolutely. First, whether we're talking about public housing or public parks, why hasn't the public been more involved in decisions about a project with such disturbing constitutional implications? Under what circumstances can the government videotape its citizens? Where can this be done? Where can't it be done? What safeguards does the public have against abuse? The city hasn't been very forthcoming about these issues. WOL: It sounds as if there are few established limits on the public use of video technology by the police. NS: Not specifically, no. And the impact of that type of legal environment may already be upon us. We have received information from sources within the New York City Police Department that there are unmarked vans patrolling three different neighborhoods, Far Rockaway and Jamaica in Queens, and East New York, and that they are videotaping people they think are 'suspicious'. The New York Times recently asked police officials about this and the answer they got is that the officials 'could not confirm' that such activity was in fact taking place. WOL: So what's your next step? NS: The NYCLU plans to investigate this. If we can't get satisfactory answers from the city we'll go down and check out those neighborhoods ourselves. If, in fact, the police are secretly videotaping citizens, we would likely take legal action under the theory that if police can't keep pictures or fingerprints of citizens who have not been charged with a crime, they certainly can't keep video records of the free movement of the citizens of a free society. Ironically, the alleged rationale for videotaping the public is security, but I would argue that the implications of such intrusive government action makes all of us less secure in very fundamental ways. For information on the New York Civil Liberties Union, visit http://www.aclu.org/community/newyork/ny.html or call (212) 344-3005.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
