Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 34
34 CHAPTER FOUR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE USE OF ELECTRONIC VIDEO SURVEILLANCE INTRODUCTION As surveillance technology advances and its use becomes commonplace throughout the transit industry, agencies are being presented with an expanding list of places that it can be employed. The decisions are not made in a vacuum, and once a decision to rely on video surveillance is made, a num- ber of questions arise. An important question is whether the cameras will be monitored in real time or used solely for forensic investigation. Once this is decided, additional ques- tions must be answered. For instance, if the system will be viewed in real time, will it be always monitored or only dur- ing operating hours, and who will do the monitoring (i.e., police/security, rail operations, or some combination of these staffs). Whether viewed in real time or later, questions need to be answered about how and where images will be stored and who will have access to them. Additional ques- tions may arise surrounding whether those on the transit FIGURE 4 The New York City Police Department system's property (patrons, employees, or even trespassers) posts signs on local streets indicating the presence of security cameras. This sign was across the street from should be informed that their actions are being monitored by a Manhattan subway station. Photo courtesy of Dorothy video surveillance. M. Schulz. This chapter relies on questionnaire responses and the literature review to provide a snapshot of how agen- To provide some guidance on why certain surveillance cies have answered some of these questions. It also pro- installations and placements were made, agencies that had vides examples of how such decisions impact policies and installed surveillance cameras on fewer than 76% of their procedures. stations, station platforms, or shelters were asked why cer- tain locations were covered and others were not. Using a five-point scale ranging from least to most important, the DECIDING WHERE TO INSTALL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE two most important factors in determining which stations, station platforms, or shelters had surveillance or on which The use of surveillance in the United States is not as it might be installed were "high disorder/crime rate" and widespread as it is in the United Kingdom, but it has been "funds available to retrofit" (Table 7). steadily expanding. It is not unusual for newspaper readers around the nation to see stories about their cities increas- Decisions on where and when to employ electronic sur- ing their reliance on cameras for a number of crime pre- veillance may be influenced by patron expectations, which vention efforts. New York City, Chicago, Baltimore, and have changed considerably with the current focus on safety Pittsburgh are only a few of those whose mayors have and security. For instance, when, on December 7, 1993, spoken frequently on the issue, and many smaller cities Colin Ferguson shot 23 people--6 fatally--on an LIRR have turned to cameras without the fanfare and publicity of train, no one asked why the railcar lacked surveillance video. these larger municipalities (Figure 4). Announcements of The response to this event may have been tempered by Fer- transit agencies' expansion of their surveillance networks guson's immediate capture by an off-duty transit officer, but also receive local attention from the media. more recent crimes on transit properties that are not captured
OCR for page 34
35 on video leave the agency subject to criticism. For instance, ies, including the local or regional transit systems. Two of in May 2010, NYCT was criticized after an encounter in a the most vocal officials have been Chicago's Mayor Richard Greenwich Village subway station that was not captured on M. Daley and New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, video led officials to admit that almost half the cameras in whose cities contain, respectively, the second-largest and the subway did not work. Ironically, the absence of video largest U.S. transit systems. Differences in the current status played no role in the case. The 19-year-old suspect arrested of surveillance-related issues by CTA and NYCT highlight in the deaths of two other men was released when a grand not only political issues, but also problems that may occur jury refused to indict after deciding he had acted in self with vendors, particularly in retrofitting aging heavy rail defense (Eligon 2010, p. A13). transit systems. In May 2010, Mayor Daley and CTA President Richard TABLE 7 L. Rodriguez announced that by May 31 at least one or more MOST/LEAST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR INSTALLING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ON STATIONS, STATION surveillance cameras would be installed in all 144 CTA sta- PLATFORMS, AND SHELTERS tions and that nearly 3,000 cameras would be installed by the Reason Most Important Least Important end of the year ("Mayor Daley ..." 2010). The announcement came less than a year after Daley appointed Rodriguez CTA High disorder/crime rate 4 1 president and encouraged him to focus on improving the Local demands/politics 3 3 safety on the system. Crime on CTA had increased slightly Enhance perceived cus- 2 1 in 2008 and early 2009, and when he was appointed Rodri- tomer safety guez noted that cameras were installed on every bus and that Funds available to retro- 4 1 he hoped to have them at all train stations with 18 months. fit existing stations, station platforms, or shelters The CTA has received $22.6 million in DHS funds since New stations, platforms, 2 0 2006, a portion of which is being used to expand its network or shelters designed to of cameras. Although the transit system has also invested accommodate surveil- approximately $19 million of its own funds in the project, lance devices the importance of DHS funding was highlighted by Chi- Other (none specified) 0 0 cago Transit Board Chairman Terry Peterson, who noted that the DHS grants have allowed CTA to make "significant Similarly, agencies that reported that fewer than 76% of upgrades to the security and surveillance network" ("Mayor their railcars were equipped with surveillance technology Daley..." 2010). CTA began adding cameras in 2002; in Jan- were asked to indicate the most and least important reasons uary 2011 Amy Kovalan, CTA's chief safety and security for equipping some vehicles and not others. Table 8 indi- officer, announced that CTA would install cameras on about cates the number of agencies for whom choices were most half its rail cars based on an existing DHS grant and had a and least important. "verbal agreement" from DHS to pay for installation on the remaining cars. An installation schedule was not provided TABLE 8 ("CTA to add security cameras to trains" 2011). MOST/LEAST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR EQUIPPING RAILCARS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY The Chicago Police Department, whose transit division Reason Most Important Least Important provides policing for the CTA, estimated that cameras had played a role in more than 4,500 arrests since 2006. Rodriguez High disorder/crime rate 1 2 also noted the importance of the cameras to the CTA Con- Local demands/politics 2 4 trol Center, which views real-time video to assist in passen- Enhance perceived cus- 4 0 ger safety by monitoring and managing service disruptions tomer safety and by providing the City's Office of Emergency Manage- Funds available to retro- 2 2 ment and Communications the ability to communicate with fit existing railcars police, fire, emergency response, and CTA personnel during New railcars equipped at 2 3 incidents. In the past, although he has not provided specific purchase numbers, Mayor Daley has stated that Chicago's network of Other (none specified) 0 0 public and private surveillance cameras is "the largest in the United States" (Spielman 2010). The announcement of the Although only a small number of transit systems indi- expansion of the surveillance network included information cated that politics played a role in installation of surveillance that all new railcars would arrive with cameras pre-installed cameras, a number of major cities' mayors have been vocal and that a pilot program would be undertaken to determine in their support of video surveillance throughout their cit- the feasibility of retrofitting existing vehicles.