Much of Georgetown’s attraction is the product of its location in America’s capital – government internships, national monuments and an air of political involvement. However, many of these draws make Washington, D.C., the target of potential terrorist attacks. To prevent these and the more mundane crimes that characterize city life, the government of D.C., with support from federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, has implemented a number of substantial security measures that raise serious concerns regarding their efficacy and impact upon civil liberties.
The first of these policies is the emphasis on surveillance cameras to combat crime and terrorism. Under the leadership of Mayor Adrian Fenty, D.C. has designed a system of 4,775 closed-circuit cameras to monitor the actions of D.C. residents. A first glance, this seems like an effective way to combat the District’s historically high crime rate. In fact, a report by the Metropolitan Police Department said that crime fell 19 percent within 250 feet of a surveillance camera.
The reality, however, is different. A 2008 study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, shows that assaults, sex offenses and robberies in San Francisco were unaffected by the presence of cameras. The only crime affected by digital surveillance was homicide, which did not decrease, but instead took place 500 feet away from the cameras. That is, while MPD touts decreased crime near cameras, the true issue is the displacement of crime to other areas.
The District’s most recent security effort is the random bag searches being conducted at Metro stations. Last week, Metro police began to randomly search the bags of travelers at the 86 rail stations and more than 12,000 bus stops operated in the D.C. metro area. The stated purpose is to detect explosives and prevent terrorist attacks, but the realities of the system suggest that it will be of limited effectiveness. For one, commuters are legally allowed to refuse the search if they are willing to leave the station. Even the most simple-minded terrorist could avoid a search by turning around and using a different station. Given that this policy is unlikely to provide any actual security, the privacy implications become more relevant. In a country whose jurisprudence presumes innocence, commuters, even those chosen randomly, should not have to prove their guiltlessness to travel. And those travelers who do pose a threat can just walk a few blocks to a different Metro station where their bags will probably not be searched.
Citizens of various types – activists, dissidents and scholars, to name a few – have good, legal reason to desire freedom from surveillance. John F. Kennedy, in the midst of his 1960 presidential campaign, said, “A society which respects civil liberty realizes that the freedom of its people is built, in large part, upon their privacy.” In the time of the civil rights movement, privacy was clearly important.
In a time of profound threats from terrorists, it may be less clear that privacy has such an important role to play, but we should not lose sight of its fundamental significance. It is deeply important that terrorism and crime are thwarted, but we must not lose sight of the goal of that effort. If we trade the principles on which this country was founded for security, we are no longer securing the principles that make America great.
“
