This is part of our Cardinal Way project on promoting civil discussions.
The use of surveillance technology is growing across Virginia. As part of our ongoing coverage of that topic (see “State of Surveillance: Everyone’s watching”), Cardinal News executive editor Jeff Schwaner recently drove 300 miles across the western part of the state and then asked law enforcement agencies to send him whatever surveillance footage they captured of his vehicle.
Some did; some did not. The city of Roanoke and the Botetourt County sheriff went to court to block the release of information; that case is still pending.
With Schwaner’s account of his attempt to obtain surveillance photos of his own vehicle taken on public highways, we included a questionnaire where we posed a series of questions for readers to answer. Here are some of the responses.
Question: Should government be able to perform warrantless public surveillance and withhold footage they capture of you from you? Why or why not?
I personally don’t have an issue with it, as we are pretty much surveilled everywhere now, it’s almost as if the television series ‘Person of Interest’ has become true reality. Now when you ask “Should government…”, that may get into a debatable constitutional issue.
— Paul Jones, Virginia Beach
Yes. Many times they can pick up the cause of an accident or crime. Anyone can take a picture of me while in public and I would have no access of that. I have no expectations of privacy in public. Why should I?
— Martha Dodd-Slippy, Emporia
No. It is an invasion of privacy.
— Greg Budnik, Fairfax County
Yes it is of no consequence unless you are a bad actor.
— Steve Robinson, Churchville
No, clearly this is a violation of the 4th Amendment
— Hawes Coleman, Staunton
I’m one of the most conservative people you’ll meet, however; I’m no fan of a police state or unfettered public surveillance of citizens. I remember reading “1984” in high school. It didn’t bother me much then. Forty-five years later; it does. Some may think of public video cameras monitoring our streets the same as they think of a LEO sitting at an intersection while running radar or looking for a vehicle of interest. The problem arises when law enforcement agencies or judges decide the camera information doesn’t belong to the people. They believe it belongs to THEM! They may be the Custodians but they’re not the Owners. Government accountability and transparency are now seriously lacking and downright murky. I believe these camera systems will so easily become weaponized against The People.
— Leslie Trivette, New Kent County
Yes. You are in a public place. What could be the difference of your photographer photographing traffic on a public street. The camera is capturing a photo of the car not necessarily the driver. Why are people so afraid of having video of their vehicle captured on a law enforcement camera. We are constantly videoed in stores that use the video to capture shoplifting. Do we complain about that? NO. If Flock cameras much like store cameras make us safer and solve crimes, why not utilize this technology. No one complains about fingerprints and DNA used to solve crimes. Flock is just another tool in the law enforcement toolbox. I suppose if you have something to hide as you go about your daily life, then I would be concerned. I am sure my car has been captured on a Flock camera. So what?
— Wally Bunker, Culpeper
Absolutely not, with power and no checks and balances is a recipe for abuse and unfortunately they will take advantage of it once their emotions get involved. Who’s to say they won’t use this technology to retaliate against a whistleblower or someone that they don’t like or agree with, then it can be used as a weapon.
— Travis Bohny, Radford
It needs to be proven that surveillance cameras provide a good public service (capturing criminal activity such as burglaries, hit and runs, accidents or other more serious incidents) and footage is not being used for nefarious purposes like you mention in your article (stalking, revealing personal travel patterns, etc.). I would hope there are laws protecting individuals and that FOIA requests must have specific purposes (e.g., my car was damaged at a parking lot and I’d like to see the images of cars next to mine during a particular day/time). That said, the drain on police resources to be searching surveillance cameras might prove exhaustive.
— Elizabeth Kelley, Fredericksburg
No, I did not give permission for this.
— Jentry Church, Ridgeway
I believe ‘public surveillance’ poses no threat in and of itself. The footage is nothing more than a reviewable record of what any of us can see in public. When that footage is withheld from the public, then it brings into question how it is being used, chain of custody, authenticity /integrity etc. What is an ‘investigative nature’ and how does that have legal bearing on the constitutional right of the public to these records? If it does, what should the protocol be for determining such designations? Overwhelming Law Enforcement agencies with FOIA requests is a point well taken. Someone could inundate a particular agency with requests for nefarious reasons — minimizing the chances of locating incriminating evidence in a timely manner.
— Jeff Lotts, Danville
I see benefits from having surveillance cameras but the data should be available. Any time information is withheld, there will be abuses.
— Lee Henkel, Lexington
Yes, how does it harm anyone? I wish all cities and towns had the cameras!
— William Howard, Lebanon
Absolutely not! First, it violates the . . . Constitution. Secondly, any time a government (national, state, or local) resists sharing information, it is because they have a reason or reasons to hide their actions, regardless of how they piously proclaim that they are public servants or are serving the public. The national governments of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union used similar methods during the Cold War. Secret snooping is a trademark of all autocratic governments.
— Rodney D. Barfield, Verona
I don’t have a problem with it as long as it is a stationary camera, filming everything at that location and not someone following just me, and if the data is deleted every 30 days. The exception is license plate readers on marked police vehicles which I feel the data can be kept for 90 days.
— Robbie Bridges, Goochland County
No. 1984 is here already! This constitutes spying on me.
— Jay Furick, Moneta
I’ve always been taught, even as an older school LEO [law enforcement officer], that there is no public expectation of privacy in public areas. Even so, there is a definite creep/big brother factor we never had before, in the name of getting the bad guys. And if footage is going to be obtained, it should definitely be open to the public’s request, just as the reason they use to get it to begin with!
— Mark Matthews, Chatham
No. I’m all for capturing the footage but the police must have a warrant to review the footage. They must be looking for specific information related to a crime.
— Charleen McManus Richmond
I don’t have an issue with surveillance on government owned property … such as courthouses, parks, and even roads but you should only be able to access your OWN information. I also believe the locations of the surveillance cameras should be public knowledge public record that anybody wanting to find out where they’re being filmed at can avoid those areas if they don’t want to be surveillanced. And I believe the surveillance cameras should be marked by them being noticeable maybe even . . . a particular color or signage.
— Stacy Anderson Eagle, Appomattox
No, they shouldn’t withhold information that has not been collected through a court-ordered subpoena or under oversight by a judge. “Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” . . . should include the right to free and unobstructed travel, commerce, transportation, and especially personal activities in public spaces. I have a friend who is an ex-cop running a detective agency. After reading your article on camera surveillance in small town Virginia, it’s clear to me why he stays so busy helping his clients. Reviewing surveillance is time consuming, but still more practical than conducting interviews of possible witnesses. Also, with his credentials as a former police officer, he likely gets more cooperation from city departments that might willingly share surveillance. He mentioned once that he cruises through neighborhoods checking for any possible doorbell cameras. I don’t know how he would get that footage, other than knocking on doors. But it’s possible that the “neighborhood watch” collectives, formed by camera owners online, could be a way that he (or I) could access footage without anyone knowing. There are many, many more doorbell and home security cameras than police surveillance. It feels a bit like we are digging our own, metaphorically human-rights grave, going forward.
— Ian Bond, Glen Allen
No, welcome to the United States of communism
— Phillip Whipple, Christiansburg
We’ll have more responses to the other questions we posed in a future edition.
