Monday, July 9, 2001 Volume 66, Issue 151



Staff Editorial


Crystal J. Doucette        Ed De La Garza 
Ken Fountain     Nikie Johnson       Ellen Simonson

Big Brother is watching

Imagine you are walking through a busy area of town, full of small shops and restaurants and bustling with other people.

Suddenly, the person next to you breaks into a run, only to be apprehended by a group of police officers. The person is arrested and led away, and
you learn from an officer that the person is suspected of having robbed a bank two weeks ago.

But the police didn't track the suspect down themselves. You learn that, as you and the hundreds of people around you walked through the city
streets, dozens of security cameras were scanning faces and comparing the images to mug shots of criminals.

A computer program had made the identification, and a live officer of the law verified it before the arrest was made.

In this hypothetical situation, do you feel reassured that the government is trying to make public streets safer, or do you worry that this type of
government surveillance is tantamount to invasion of privacy -- an Orwellian Big Brother type of situation?

This is the very real decision that residents of Tampa, Fla., are having to grapple with. On June 29, the FaceIt system was installed in Ybor City, a
popular downtown district of Tampa.

The system, which Tampa can use free for one year, did not make any identifications in its first few days of use.

Supporters say the technology is no different than having police officers standing on the streets holding mug shots, except that it works much faster
and can see much more.

Some business owners say they and their customers feel more secure, and the facts seem to back them up: Officials in Newham, England, credit
FaceIt -- which has been in place there since 1998 -- with a drop in crime.

But critics argue that the benefits do not outweigh the ominous sense of being watched by the government. They say the system is an invasion of
privacy and a violation of civil liberties.

The only warnings in the area are signs saying "Smart CCTV is in use," referring to closed circuit television. But not everyone being watched can see
the signs, and many people don't know what the warning means. Critics argue these signs are not sufficient warning.

A public street is different from a bank, a convenience store or any other private business where customers can be expected to be on camera.

With all the advances in technology these days, it is becoming harder and harder to ever be assured of privacy. Is this taking the trend a step too far?

Tampa officials must carefully weigh the benefits to public security with the public's guaranteed right to privacy and consider what the implications
may be for a free society.

To contact the Opinon Section Editor, send e-mail to

To contact other members of 
The Daily Cougar Online staff, 


Advertise in The Daily Cougar

Student Publications
University of Houston
Houston, Texas 77204-4071

©2005, Student Publications. All rights reserved.
Permissions/Web Use Policy


Last upMonday, July 9, 2001:

Visit The Daily Cougar