The browser or device you are using is out of date. It has known security flaws and a limited feature set. You will not see all the features of some websites. Please update your browser. A list of the most popular browsers can be found below.
The PSS system is relatively cost-effective and gives police the ability to observe activity before, during and after a crime — but the concept of aerial surveillance has many citizens up in arms with privacy concerns.
Here’s a look at three cities currently weighing the balance between privacy and security.
“We’re not going to get those officers back,” said Police Chief Richard Biehl. “We have had to use technology as force multipliers.”
During a demonstration flight in 2012, PSS technology was able to track a robbery suspect from the scene of the crime — and thwart another attempted robbery in progress.
Despite successful examples of PSS surveillance, a proposed plan for the company to contract with the city of Dayton (120 hours of surveillance at $1,000 an hour — cheaper than comparable services from a police helicopter) was scrapped after a citizens’ group raised opposition over privacy concerns.
“Whether we are talking about piloted airborne surveillance programs or drones, the technology is here and it will only get smaller, cheaper and more sophisticated,” said Melissa Bilancini, policy coordinator for the ACLU of Ohio. “Given this reality, it is important for every city to have policies that address the potential impact this evolving technology will have on privacy.”
For another “TechKnow” segment on high-tech police tools, Moran explored the use of license plate readers — high-speed cameras mounted on police cars or stationary objects like road signs and bridges. Automatic license plate readers, or ALPRs, can help police quickly identify cars that have been stolen or reported in connection with other crimes, but they also raise further concerns about privacy and discrimination.
"All ALPR data is investigatory — regardless of whether a license plate scan results in an immediate 'hit' because, for instance, the vehicle may be stolen, the subject of an 'Amber Alert,' or operated by an individual with an outstanding arrest warrant," reads the LAPD’s brief.
The department’s attitude toward ALPR data has increased concerns from the ACLU and other civil liberties groups.
"Police can and should treat location information from ALPRs like other sensitive information. They should retain it no longer than necessary to determine if it might be relevant to a crime and get a warrant if they need to keep it any longer," says ACLU-SC senior staff attorney Peter Bibring. "They should limit who can access it, who they can share it with, and create an oversight system to make sure the limits are followed."
The debate between public safety and privacy is not unique to the United States.
“If you go to a place like Britain, and more specifically London, that is even more surveilled [than U.S. cities],” says “TechKnow” contributor Kyle Hill when discussing Moran’s surveillance story. “You can’t go to basically any public space without being on camera.”
“Effective CCTV schemes are an invaluable source of crime detection and evidence for the police,” said Simon Adcock of the BSIA. “For example, in 2009, 95 percent of Scotland Yard murder cases used CCTV footage as evidence.”
To learn more about surveillance technology, watch "TechKnow," Saturday 7ET/4PT.