February 1, 2001

7:22 PM

During the Super Bowl fans were subjucted to a "computerized police lineup" as they were entering Raymond James Stadium. According to law enforcement officials, it was used to "scan the crowd for pickpockets and terrorists..." Now the ACLU has demanded that public hearings about its use be held in Tampa. Were local officials using a legitimate tool of law enforcement or were they acting like Big Brother?
posted by Bag Man (26 comments total)

I don't see a problem with them doing this, but of course, I don't pick pockets and I'm not a terrorist.
posted by howa2396 at 7:51 PM on February 1, 2001

This year it's The Super Bowl, next year, it could be pro-choice rallies, or union meetings, or The Tibetan Freedom Concert.

Right now, they're looking for pickpockets and terrorists. Later, they may very well by looking for political "radicals" or "undesireables", or people with unpaid traffic tickets.

I've got a BIG problem with it.
posted by Optamystic at 9:47 PM on February 1, 2001

Big Brother in real action....My tax dolllars being spend for a system with no guidelines, Try this idea to save some real money and time:

Why don't they just shave our heads then stamp a bar code:

"This is a Good Guy" or
"Warning - Bad Guy"


posted by Max's Daddy at 10:50 PM on February 1, 2001

Wtf? I heard this story on the radio a day and a half ago and I was going to post it here, but I couldn't find it on any wire service, yahoo, moreover, any news site at all. I wonder why it took so long. Very strange.
posted by sylloge at 11:54 PM on February 1, 2001

I'm not sure which bothers me more, the event or how blase everyone at my office was about it. "Gosh, sounds like a good idea to me". I think in 30 years we will have a clearer idea if computers liberated or enslaved us all. Right now it kind of feels like both.
posted by david hedge at 11:56 PM on February 1, 2001

It's not a question of YOU picking pockets or being a terrorist, it's a question of you LOOKING LIKE a pickpocket or a LOOKING LIKE a terrorist

Or to put it bluntly - not being happy white and heterosexual
posted by fullerine at 2:32 AM on February 2, 2001

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. On one hand, I feel that training a camera on me and doing a face search is an invasion of privacy. Furthermore, I don't think that that people should be made to feel like they've done something wrong before anybody does done anything.

On the other hand, I don't see any difference between having a camera focused on me or a security guard watching me. From malls, to ballparks, to just about anywhere security officers and cameras are needed to keep the peace and prevent crime.

Perhaps its the unregulated use of such technology that really bothers me. Having little, or no, oversight can create a situation where there is no way to prevent the powers that be from abusing such technology.
posted by Bag Man at 3:45 AM on February 2, 2001

I think that last post gets to the point. It's the unregulated use and therefore the *potential* for abuse that presents the real dilemmas. In the news article referenced in the original entry, the ACLU is hitting on the important fine details - hearings to reveal who authorized the program, what crime databases were used, what actions would have been taken against anyone identified from a database and how the captured images were destroyed.

For example, look at this past election in which some FL residents were prevented from voting because the state thought that they were convicted felons. The situation arose because of faulty databases and inconsistency in the sources of the data. What's to keep the same sort of problem happening here or in the future?

And, I think that it's important that the images end up being destroyed at some point, or not being specifically reused to become part of some new database of people. It's not a tracking mechanism for people's activities, so there should be some mechanism that prevents that potential.
posted by warhol at 5:03 AM on February 2, 2001

Raymond James Stadium is a place of business. If you go to the 7-11 or mall there is also video surveillance. I agree there is potential for abuse, but I personally would feel better that someone was watching out for my safety. The Super Bowl was a real nice American, high-profile target.
posted by quirked at 6:49 AM on February 2, 2001

"Raymond James Stadium is a place of business"
Well then by all means let's not have any right to privacy there.

Oh, but did you notice who was doing the surveillance? Who paid for it? What records they were accessing to determine who was thumbs up and who was thumbs down? Dig a little deeper . . . think a little harder
posted by Outlawyr at 7:30 AM on February 2, 2001

Once again, Florida is at the center of controversy. They have had quite a busy year.
posted by Sal Amander at 7:36 AM on February 2, 2001

Ticketholders (customers of business) had a right to know that this was going to be done at the time they purchased the tickets. The
ACLU is all over this one.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
posted by xiffix at 7:46 AM on February 2, 2001

Ticketholders (customers of business) had a right to know that this was going to be done at the time they purchased the tickets.

They sure did... because anyone who goes to a stadium for a sporting event with 70,000 attendees that's being broadcast on national television ought to be able to make an informed decision about whether anyone will see his or her face on camera.

Outlawyr, exactly what kind of "privacy" expectation can anyone have in that setting?
posted by mikewas at 9:54 AM on February 2, 2001

The right not to be subjected to an unreasonable search, mike. While I understand that by attending an event like this, I am forfeiting my option to not be seen, I really have a big problem with forfeiting my option to not be scanned, dumped into a database, examined, and stored just because I'm walking around.
posted by Skot at 10:49 AM on February 2, 2001

Having your face looked at is an unreasonable search? The only difference between this and an eyeball identification by a police presence is the effectiveness and efficiency with which it's done.

Though it is often misused to excuse violations of liberties, the adage of "you've got nothing to worry about if you're innocent" seems appropos here. You would've had to be a photographed criminal or terrorist for this to have had any effect on your life.

And if you looked like someone else and you were stopped accordingly, it still wouldn't have been any more an encroachment on your rights than being pulled over because you're driving the same make, model and color of car as a fugitive who police are looking for.
posted by Dreama at 11:27 AM on February 2, 2001

The scary part is not that this system was used at the Superbowl, which seems almost reasonable given the potential for threat to such an event. (Although I do agree the patrons should have been told.) But the Tampa police, who now own the system, plan to install cameras all over the city in public areas to watch for known criminals.

Now that's scary.
posted by daveadams at 11:33 AM on February 2, 2001

the real crime was not using this technology to scan the field during play. probably more criminals running around in uniform than in the whole of Tampa. how could they miss ray lewis?
posted by donkeysuck at 11:40 AM on February 2, 2001

The only difference between this and an eyeball identification by a police presence is the effectiveness and efficiency with which it's done.

If you keep making a process more efficient, eventually it becomes capable of doing things that were uneconomical before, and is thus a de facto new process. There is, after all, nothing a computer can do that a human with a pencil and paper can't - but the fact that the computer can do it so much faster makes it a new situation capable of doing new things.

So the effectiveness and efficiency with which this is done is exactly the point and exactly what makes the system new and therefore suspect. Things can (and will) be done with it that could not be done before, simply because it is automated and fast. It's perfectly legitimate to suggest that these might not be things we WANT being done.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 11:42 AM on February 2, 2001

Those cameras wouldn't have detected Bruce Dern's character.
posted by gluechunk at 11:53 AM on February 2, 2001

Quis custodiet... xiffix is on point. Businesses have a responsibility to inform the patron that they are being recorded. Even 7-11's have those signs on the doors...
posted by J. R. Hughto at 12:20 PM on February 2, 2001

Touche, Donkeysuck. A brilliant aside.

As someone said earlier, the ACLU seems to be on the top of the situation right now.
posted by kevincmurphy at 12:56 PM on February 2, 2001

I don't think there's anything wrong with these scans. I'm not a happy white heterosexual (well I'm happy and heterosexual, but not white), and I wouldn't feel at all targeted. They say somewhere in the article that there were signs posted outside informing the fans that they would be surveyed (did I spell that right?).

Scanning your face to match a criminal's does not seem at all an "invasion of privacy" to me. Does that mean people taking a picture while you're in the background are invading your privacy? The basis of this system is that if you're not matched, your image gets dumped and no one ever even sees it.

Think about it - if that camera catches a guy with some bomb that would have killed everyone in that stadium, and your image was scanned and searched by the computer for like 2 seconds, then dumped, does it really even matter? This type of security is progress.
posted by swank6 at 3:38 PM on February 2, 2001

The problem I have with isn't so much the checking for criminals as the potential for abuse. Law enforcement databases are found to contain major errors all the time - especially important ones like registered sex offenders or other major criminals; a recent study found that many such databases were also hosted on insecure systems. Consider what happens if either a mistake or a cracker listed you as a sex offender - the first you'd hear about it would be when you were arrested.

If the cops were a bit violent and/or their reaction sudden, an innocent person might act like they're trying to run or fight before realizing what's happening and it's not as if violence towards people suspected of major / heinous crimes are rare ("We used deadly force because we thought he was a terrorist; we hope his next of kin will accept our apologies").

Even if mistakes were resolved fairly quickly, can you imagine how much fun it would be explaining to friends/coworkers why the police had acted as if you were a major criminal? There've been a couple cases where a mistake has caused someone to be listed as a major criminal and it takes much longer to get the incorrect data corrected than it did to distribute it.

Then you get the concerns over how many things are crimes these days. Want to bet they'd try to consider a traffic violation or a college kid smoking weed justification for tracking this person in the future? Alternately, want to bet that some large company might not be able to setup some deal where they might get copies of information they find interesting? ("According to our records, you regularly drink at this bar, so we'll have to raise the rates on your health and auto insurance")

I think the only way this could be done without trampling civil rights is to have everything on the system be reported public - the locations of the scanners, the error rates, where and how long the data is kept and how it is scrubbed, etc. It'd be a disaster if they got a Carnivore-style system where the privacy concerns are essentially answered with "Just trust us".
posted by adamsc at 7:47 PM on February 2, 2001

The only difference between this and an eyeball identification by a police presence is the effectiveness and efficiency with which it's done.

No. It's the difference between being observed and being stopped and positively identified, whether by photo ID, fingerprint, or retina scan. This system makes all citizens suspects. The principle of innocence until proven otherwise is summarily rejected. This is really OK with some of you?
posted by sudama at 8:09 PM on February 2, 2001

All I know is that if I was a crazed terrorist I'd wear a mask.

Now if only I could find a situation where I could obscure my face in someway.
posted by fullerine at 1:14 AM on February 3, 2001

On the other hand, I don't see any difference between having a camera focused on me or a security guard watching me. From malls, to ballparks, to just about anywhere security officers and cameras are needed to keep the peace and prevent crime.

Mars replied to that pretty effectively, but I wanted to expand on one point: for me the question is "are the police willing to put the effort into it". Just like on the CAS (computer assisted stalking) side, the ever-continuing march of technology makes a degree of scope of action possible for one person that just wasn't possible before... which requires that we re-evaluate our laws to see if they're tight enough to protect us.

There's no sense making law against things which people cann't practically accomplish. That sphere is expanded by technology every day, making it necessary that we control more actions.

Both of the citizenry and the police.
posted by baylink at 3:21 PM on February 3, 2001