Instead, I quickly recognized that some of the headlines were deceptive, as reporters sought to churn a minor clarification into a major story.

Here are some examples that I don’t think are objective (I’ve underlined wording I think is unfair):

• USA Today: “A divided Supreme Court scaled back the well-known Miranda right….”
• Los Angeles Times: “Supreme Court Loosens Miranda Rule” (headline), “The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda right on Tuesday….”
• Vanity Fair: “In the New America, You Must Invoke Your Own Miranda Rights”
• Detroit News: “Supreme Court narrows Miranda rights….”
• Newsday: “Supreme Court expands limits on Miranda rights”

Several commentators, writing before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, described the case as an attempt to “expand” or “clarify” Miranda, which required that before questioning, suspects must be advised of their Constitutional rights (to have an attorney, and not to incriminate themselves), and police must terminate questioning if a suspect invokes those rights.

But when the ruling was announced on June 1, most reporters and editors immediately transformed the “non-expansion” story into a “limitation” or “retreat” story.

There are two reasons why the media may have sought to magnify the ruling’s importance and impact.  First, the dissenting opinion was written by newly-appointed Justice Sotomayor. Second, when the case was briefed and argued, the U.S. government sought the ruling that the majority delivered — and the government was represented by current Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who is now President Obama’s nominee for appointment to the Supreme Court.

I assume that in the next few days, we’ll hear pundits proclaim that this case demonstrates that Ms. Kagan is more moderate (less liberal, more conservative) than Justice Sotomayor, which might make her appointment seem more acceptable to some Senators (and perhaps less acceptable to other Senators).  Undoubtedly, we will also hear some  pundits complain that Obama should withdraw Kagan’s nomination because she’s too conservative, and different pundits will claim that this case was a “smoke screen” intended all along to make Kagan appear more moderate than she “really is.”

In fairness, the “change” and “limitation” language was not the only “angle” that editors seized upon.  Many other articles instead emphasized the apparent contradiction in the court’s ruling that one must “speak up in order to assert the right to remain silent” (for example, the New York Times editorial, “Speaking Up to Stay Silent”).

__________________________

The actual issue in this case was whether a statement made by a suspect during interrogation, after remaining “largely silent” for nearly three hours, could be admitted at his trial, or should be excluded.

Mr. Thompkins was arrested for murder.  During his interrogation, he was advised of his right to remain silent, and he remained “almost completely silent and unresponsive”.  However, “At no point during the interrogation did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney.”

After nearly three hours of an interrogation best described as a “monologue,” a detective asked Thompkins if he believed in God, and if he prayed; Thompkins answered “yes” to both questions. The detective then asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” and the suspect answered “Yes.” Thompkins’ attorneys sought to have this statement excluded, arguing that by remaining mostly silent for nearly three hours, Thompkins had effectively communicated his intent to remain silent, and police should have ended the interview before then.

The “real issue” in the case, I think, was this: after police insisted that Thompkins read a portion of the Miranda rights from a card, and after police read all these rights to him, and after Thompkins refused to sign an acknowledgment that he “had been advised of and understood his rights,” police did not ask him if he expressly waived those rights.

The Supreme Court was presented with an opportunity to clarify the Miranda decision by deciding whether or not police were required to ask that question (and if so, whether they could insist that the defendant reply; or if the defendant did not reply, whether police should infer either a waiver or invocation of that right).

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that police were not required to ask, nor were they required to infer from silence that a suspect was “invoking his right to remain silent,” which would end the interrogation.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

The Court concludes today that a criminal suspect waives his right to remain silent if, after sitting tacit and uncommunicative through nearly three hours of police interrogation, he utters a few one-word responses. The Court also concludes that a suspect who wishes to guard his right to remain silent against such a finding of “waiver” must, counter-intuitively, speak—and must do so with sufficient precision to satisfy a clear-statement rule that construes ambiguity in favor of the police. Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), has long provided during custodial interrogation.” (Berghuis v. Thompkins).

While I don’t agree with the majority’s decision, I don’t agree with Justice Sotomayor that this case represents a “substantial retreat,” and I don’t think the majority decision will “limit” or “change” existing law, nor will it change police procedure.

Most journalists adopted the dissent’s view that this decision was a significant change from existing law.  I find this a fascinating example of “pack-mentality media distortion.”

Over the past few months, I’ve been trying to identify strategies to deter graffiti vandals.  There are many locations which, once cleaned of graffiti, are consistently re-tagged within a day or two, making the graffiti-cleanup process seem like a never-ending, “no-win” effort.

Of course, graffiti isn’t the only issue.  In my neighborhood, there are several “illegal dumping” locations, in front of vacant state-owned property. Although city staff promptly removes junk & debris on public property when reported, these locations rarely remain clean for more than a day.

The cost to pay city staff to clean up graffiti or pick up trash (many times in a year in each location) is quite high.  And if graffiti isn’t cleaned up, the blight creates a perception of lawlessness, which many studies have shown leads to increased crime, which brings additional expense in addition to the danger to public safety.

One obvious idea is to install surveillance cameras in these locations, to identify and pursue the lawbreakers.  (For the moment, I’d like to defer discussion of the legal, moral, and ethical issues surrounding the use of surveillance cameras. I’ve shared my mixed feelings about the issue, in part, back in October 2001.)

Unfortunately, the cost for a local government (or property owner, neighborhood group, or concerned neighbor) to install and maintain a security camera in any location is quite high, and city officials and police are reluctant to allocate significant resources to these issues (graffiti and debris) because overworked county prosecutors probably won’t take the offenders to court anyway.

My question: What are the options for “low-cost surveillance camera” setups that might be used by a city, a property owner, or by a neighborhood group, to monitor a location? In particular, are there any affordable options for “portable” surveillance equipment that can be moved relatively easily from one location to another?

Here are the “camera” issues I perceive:

• The camera‘s quality and functionality: image resolution; low-light capabilities; color; focus; zoom capability;
• “Movement options” for the surveillance setup (e.g. the ability to pan right or left, up or down, and to zoom in or out);
• Storage options (to store recorded video for later retrieval);
• Data transfer options (how will recorded video be “downloaded” for viewing: by wireless connection, or using a cable or removable storage);
• Power options (plug-in, battery, and/or solar);
• Installation and maintenance issues.

Each of these issues raises some very specific cost considerations, and of course each issue impacts others.  (For example, providing remote wireless access to the unit might require more power.)

Retrieval and “use” of the recorded videos are separate issues to address. I assume that video would only be viewed “after the fact” (for example, when a graffiti tag or dumped trash is observed, the recordings would be used to track back to the time when the crime occurred.)

Another issue is visibility of the surveillance unit. A conspicuous warning or notice might deter criminals (from that location), but might also lead vandals to damage or steal the equipment.

I’d appreciate feedback, either by posting comments or via email (to Mark Welch at Mark Welch dot com).

Even before September 11, cameras were rapidly being deployed in major American cities. In the wake of the terror spread by the air attacks and this week’s “anthrax letters,” security and public safety now seem nearly certain to trump any “Big Brother” privacy concerns.

I think it’s important to distinguish “public surveillance” from “private surveillance.”

Private Surveillance: Every American is aware noticed the presence of closed-circuit TV cameras in banks and convenience stores. These cameras are installed to help deter violent robberies, and to help identify and capture criminals. In most cases, the cameras are connected to tape machines, and the tapes are never watched unless a crime is known to have occurred.

Monitored surveillance cameras are also used to “extend” the eyesight of security staff in businesses. For example, urban parking garages often have on-site security staff with one or more closed-circuit monitors to watch for criminal activity or persons in distress. Some retail department stores use cameras and staff to detect (and deter) shoplifting. Cameras are commonly used at the entrances to secondary building entrances, including loading docks, so that a single employee can monitor multiple building entrances, and perhaps hallways and elevators within the building.

“Quasi-public” surveillance cameras are those that private companies deploy to view activity in public places. These can include cameras deployed at building entrances, ostensibly to view persons seeking entry to the building. “Quasi-public” cameras are also installed at Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) to confirm the identity of persons initiating transactions, and to help deter violent robberies of ATM patrons.

These private cameras are “quasi-public” because law enforcement agencies routinely make use of these cameras, and actively seek to view tapes from these cameras when investigating the movement of persons who passed by the cameras, even if the investigation is unrelated to the activity of the business operating the camera. I think it is important to consider the use of thise “quasi public” private surveillance cameras, especially in situations where camera installation is strongly encouraged or actually required by government entities, or where tapes are actually used by law enforcement (or other agents of public entities) more frequently than by the business staff or owner.

Public surveillance cameras are those installed by federal, state, or local governments, or on their behalf. These include surveillance cameras on public transit (trains, buses, and ferries, and in transit stations), in public parks and facilities, on public streets and sidewalks, and in other public places.

Who Cares? I admit that I share some of the “who cares” attitude about most surveillance cameras that are placed in locations accessed by the general public. I am reassured by the presence of cameras in my bank’s ATM, especially late at night, since the camera’s presence deters many violent criminals from robbing me. I get similar reassurance from cameras in other public places where I might become the victim of violent crime. And I concede that cameras in retail stores help detect and deter shoplifting, the cost of which must otherwise be added to the retail price of goods I buy.

I Care: I do care, of course, about surveillance cameras that seem to invade on my private space. Despite security concerns, retail stores cannot legally install cameras in bathrooms or dressing rooms (and those who are caught breaking the law should properly expect bankruptcy from civil suits). Nor can cameras be installed in private or public places in order to peer into another person’s private home or business. Don’t be misled by the titilating ads for X10 wireless cameras: it is illegal to use technology to peer into a private bathroom, dressing room, or bedroom.

The Infinite Network of Surveillance Cameras: If you watch many TV shows and movies from Hollywood, you may already have seen a scene in which some clever hacker taps into the live feeds from public and private surveillance cameras, sometimes “following” a person as they walk down a public street, using a series of private and public cameras in ATM machines, convenience stores, laundromats, and traffic signals. This makes for great entertainment, but very few surveillance cameras are connected to computers at all (though the number is increasing), and fewer still are configured to allow remote viewing of the camera’s signal. Likewise, the frequent use in TV programs of “video enhancement” software that somehow zooms in on a small portion of a grainy 320×240 camera image into a detailed high-resolution picture of a person’s face or the writing on a piece of paper, is simply absurd.

It’s important to recognize that the vast majority of video surveillance cameras are connected only to a VCR in some back room or basement. Very few surveillance cameras have the ability to “zoom” or “pan.” And very few businesses have adequate internet bandwidth to allow real-time monitoring of even a single camera’s view from a remore location.

For some perspective on the notion of the “pervasive network” of surveillance cameras, I suggest that you check out the New York City Surveillance Camera Project, in which volunteers for the New York Civil Liberties Union walked every city block in Manhattan to record the presence of visible security cameras.  Some blocks appear to contain a dozen cameras or more, on the map they created.  “Of the 2,397 cameras, approximately 2,100 are private and fewer than 300 appear to be public.” (It is unclear if the NYC project included surveillance cameras in ATM machines or those installed inside retail stores whose view extends through glass doors and windows to public areas, nor whether cameras inside subway stations and train stations were included.)

Cost as a Deterrent: The cost of surveillance technology has dropped considerably in the past few decades, but the cost of cameras and VCRs isn’t really the issue. Instead, the real obstacle has been the need for staff time to regularly replace (rotate) videotapes, and to move tapes to off-site locations. Of course, the cost escalates if a camera will be monitored in real-time by a staff person.  (A camera that simply records for six hours, then rewinds and re-records over the same tape, is only useful if the tape is removed within a few hours after an event captured by the camera.)

Public Webcams: There are now thousands of “webcams” around the world, operating operate 24 hours a day so that anyone can view activity in many public places (and sometimes in normally private places). These webcams remain novelties in most cases: I can check to see what the weather looks like at the beach in Santa Cruz, California, or at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii. (See Yahoo’s list of beach cams.)

Day Care Webcams: For worried parents, a number of private day-care centers have installed surveillance cameras in the day care center, and parents can view the camera signals in real-time, to monitor their children and the staff entrusted with the children’s care.

Cost of webcam technology for surveillance: Using one or more “web cams” for private (or public) surveillance is the new trend. For under $250, I bought a complete package from X10.com, including three “wireless” cameras and a receiver with a USB computer link. Attaching this setup to my computer, I could rotate between and capture images from each of three cameras, storing the images to a hard disk. If the computer is also configured as an internet server (with an “always-on” connection to the internet, at a cost of $50 to $150 per month), then the images can be viewed from any remote location. Storage remains an issue, especially if real-time video is being captured: this setup captures gigabytes of image files every day.

This subject is fascinating, and I can think of dozens of frightening applications: imagine a rapist or pedophile tapping into webcams to identify potential victims. Imagine the use of public cameras by law enforcement to intensely track all activity by members of a minority group, to allow “100% enforcement” of all laws against members of that group.  (Imagine, instead, the use of public and private cameras to detect incidents of official misconduct.)  Imagine a camera installed in your cubicle or workstation, so that your boss can watch you at any time during the day, without you knowing when they are watching. Imagine a television in your home with its own camera that’s always on, and which could be used by the government to watch you at any time, to detect any non-conforming behavior. (Oops, that last one is straight from 1984 .)