COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – The City of Columbus is working on creating a security camera network that city leaders say will help identify and track crime suspects, but one expert is warning residents about potential privacy concerns.
In Mayor Andrew Ginther’s State of the City address, he announced a network of public and private-sector partners are collaborating to create a security camera network Downtown by early 2025.
Ginther said the camera system displays events to law enforcement officials as they unfold, giving them intel before their cruisers arrive at the scene. This helps officers make the best use of their time and deliver the best possible results for residents, he said.
“From identifying and tracking suspects and the vehicles they use to commit crimes to locating missing persons whose whereabouts are unknown, we’re already seeing signs of tremendous success, and we’re excited to take this work to the next level,” Ginther said.
Ginther did not go into detail on how the system -- stacking with Columbus' existing ShotSpotter detectors -- would operate. Since the announcement, little information has become available; Ginther stated the system is still being completed, so his office does not “have specific details yet.”
Downtown Columbus Inc. is spearheading the project, and Ginther said he believes they will release more details this summer. Despite multiple inquiries from NBC4, the nonprofit did not respond to a request for comment.
Detroit and Chicago are the cities that are the furthest along in their creation of a security camera network, according to Georgetown Law. Detroit purchased its face surveillance system, called “Project Green Light,” in July 2017 as part of a contract with vendor DataWorks Plus, totaling $1,045,843.20.
The contract also includes investigative face recognition software and an application that enables a limited number of Detroit police officers to run face recognition searches on their mobile devices. The face recognition technology is configured to compare unknown faces in the footage against Detroit’s database of mugshots, according to Georgetown Law.
As of May 2019, the project had at least 535 locations across the city, thanks to partnerships with local establishments that installed the cameras. Project Green Light’s partners are mostly gas stations, liquor stores and other late-night businesses, but partners also consist of churches, pharmacies, schools and medical clinics.
Authorities have begun piloting similar programs in Orlando, Florida; Washington, D.C.; and New York. And soon, Columbus will join that list.
The most comprehensive research to date on camera surveillance found that the presence of cameras led to a small reduction in crime. The study, led by researchers at City University of New York, Northeastern University and Cambridge University, was a 40-year systematic review of the effects of surveillance camera networks in countries such as Britain and South Korea.
Overall, the study found crime decreased 13% in areas with video surveillance. Cameras were effective as a deterrent for property crimes like car burglaries and theft but had no significant impact on violent crime.
Researchers have found that security cameras have the highest deterrent effect in parking lots. A recent study from the College of Policing noted that the use of security cameras in parking lots significantly reduced crime, with a 37% drop in incidents.
When it comes to Project Green Light in Detroit, the city claims that the system has reduced incidents of violent crime by 23% at all camera sites. Research by the United States Department of Justice found contradictory results, claiming the camera network was ineffective at reducing violent crime.
“There was no statistically significant difference in violent crime reporting for treated businesses that implemented Project Green Light, compared with matched untreated control businesses that did not implement the initiative, from the preintervention period to 1-year postimplementation,” the DOJ report states.
The DOJ did find that in areas where the cameras were installed, property crimes declined about 27% after the first year of Project Green Light's implementation.
Jake Wiener, an attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who works on the nonprofit’s surveillance oversight project, said just because these cameras may reduce crime where they are placed does not mean crime in a city will decrease overall.
“Specifically placed cameras can reduce specific types of crimes where they are placed,” Wiener said. “They don’t reduce crime overall, but they move crime around. So people are less likely to steal a car when there’s a camera pointed at that car. That does not mean that overall car theft in your city will go down, it just means that criminals will focus on elsewhere in the city.”
While research shows surveillance camera systems may reduce property crimes where they are placed, Wiener said there are “buckets of concerns” Columbus residents should be aware of.
“So first is whether it works to reduce crime and the second is if the trade-off is worth it,” Wiener said. “So who has access to the system, how can they use the system and what is the impact on people’s fundamental privacy and civil rights.”
Wiener said typically, the camera networks are made accessible to the police and are routed through a “real-time crime center” which enables police to monitor people in real-time – something police are already running in Columbus. Who has access to that footage, Wiener says, could become a privacy concern for residents.
“Through those real-time crime centers, you may also find that there is other state police agencies as well as potentially the federal government, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, they eventually wind up with access to footage,” Wiener said.
Wiener believes to reduce potential negative effects of the Columbus system, it is important to ensure the camera data does not travel beyond the Columbus Division of Police and is not made available to third-party companies, along with other state and federal agencies.
“There are absolutely privacy concerns,” Wiener said. “I think the people deserve to be able to go about their daily lives without the government keeping a record of their movements, what they were doing and who they were speaking to. And these camera systems that run 24/7 surveil everyone. There are also specific harms that can come from that which include potential more harmful arrests and [concerns about] free speech. One of the things the camera systems are most effective at policing are protests.”
If Columbus uses a facial recognition system, the harmful arrests he mentioned could happen as a result of system limitations.
“It is very common for footage from CTV cameras to be run through facial recognition systems,” Wiener said. “I would note here that the kind of footage that CTV cameras produce is not what facial recognition programs are designed to run on and there’s a higher misidentification rate.”
Along with limiting who has access to the footage, Wiener said ensuring there are audits to ensure misuse of the system is reported to to city council is another important step to reducing harm.
