NEW POLICE TECHNOLOGY MUST BE CAREFULLY USED

The U.S. Supreme Court recently put the brakes on police departments
seeking to use heat sensing cameras to detect marijuana plants growing
inside someone's house. The court said police must have a search warrant
before they can use technology that lets them see what is going on inside a
person's home.

But new technology is spurring all sorts of government initiatives to keep
track of people.

- -- About 60 communities now use cameras to catch people running red lights.
As more equipment becomes available, more want to sign on, including some
in Trumbull County.

- -- The National Park Service is testing a program that uses a combination
of radar and cameras to catch speeders on park roads.

- -- Tampa recently became the first city to use cameras linked to
face-recognition software to scan city streets in an effort to find criminals.

In theory, this sounds good. Advocates of these programs say the tougher
enforcement improves public safety. Constant surveillance from a camera
cuts down on people running red lights and forces speeders to slow down.

But the price in terms of lost privacy is very, very steep. The prospect of
government constantly watching law-abiding citizens has turned the liberal
American Civil Liberties Union and conservative House Majority Leader Dick
Armey, R-Texas, into allies on this issue.

There are many problems with this use of cameras.

First and foremost is the assault on privacy. Armey said it clearly:
"Placing police officers in a remote control booth to watch the every move
of honest citizens isn't going to make us safer." Innocent people should
not be subject to such constant monitoring by the government. Before
citizens are subjected to such surveillance, police should have probable
cause and a warrant.

Second is the great potential for abuse. Visionics Corp., which makes the
camera system used in Tampa, says there is a code of conduct for police
using their equipment. The computer database should not store images of
innocent people, and only the faces of known criminals should be entered
into the face-recognition software.

But who is going to enforce that code?

Before other cities adopt this technology, there must be strict guidelines
on its use that are enforced by outside agencies. For example, in Ohio the
Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information monitors how local police
departments use software for using license plates to find the owner of a
vehicle. Otherwise, corrupt police or government officials could use this
software to harass people or track their every move. Don't think it can't
happen. Trumbull County has seen several instances of police officers
misusing the license plate program.

There is another potential form of abuse. According to Armey, cities with
red-light cameras shortened yellow lights to increase the number of
red-light violations. That results in more tickets and more revenue for the
city and the company providing the camera, which gets a share of each fine.

Third, these cameras presume a person is guilty. In the case of traffic
radar, a camera does not always clearly show who is driving, so the
registered owner always gets the ticket. If the owner was not in the car at
the time, he or she must then submit an affidavit claiming his or her
innocence. That is backward. Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore said, "The use
of cameras operating without human judgment reduces our system of justice
to trial by machinery without the presumption of innocence."

Finally there is the potential for mistakes. For instance, in San Diego,
attorneys found that sensors in the pavement had been moved, resulting in
false readings. How many people can afford the attorney fees needed to
fight a ticket and make such a discovery?

And if the use of cameras and radar are not bad enough, technology tracking
gets worse. A car rental company in Connecticut has been using satellites
to track its customers to see if they were speeding. When a customer went
too fast, the company automatically imposed an extra charge on his or her
credit card. That scheme ran afoul of consumer protection laws, but the
company is amending its notification so it can resume the practice.

If Americans are not careful, this new technology could open the door for
Big Brother. People have less a right to privacy when they are in public,
but that should not mean police are allowed to watch or track everyone all
of the time.