Across the state of Ohio, new types of surveillance technology are gradually being integrated into law enforcement’s daily operations. These include the deployment of drones, the establishment of surveillance hubs, and the application of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) mechanisms and robots. Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, alongside Dublin Police Department, are leading the way by introducing drones as auxiliary first responders. Moreover, Dublin is anticipated to incorporate police robots, mirroring those earlier observed in New York City’s subway system.
The Columbus Division of Police has plans in place to erect a novel ‘real time crime center’. These modern observation hubs have the capacity to interface with government traffic cameras, license plate readers, and police body cameras. Importantly, they can also access private security systems, such as school or business CCTV cameras and domestic doorbell cameras, with permission from the respective owners. However, these advancements are not without their controversies, as demonstrated by a recent case where Cleveland Division of Police’s use of A.I. facial recognition as evidence was rejected by the court.
The increasing penetration of high-tech surveillance into law enforcement is a cause for concern for certain organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio. The ACLU fears that the unregulated implementation of these next-generation technologies could further encroach on individual privacy, drawing comparisons to the intrusive regime of ‘Big Brother’ — the omnipresent governmental authority in George Orwell’s dystopian classic ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.
On the other hand, law enforcement agencies argue that these technological advancements enable them to better distribute resources and more effectively respond to unfolding situations. They claim that the ability to locate and monitor suspects, gather significant evidence, and even substitute human units in certain circumstances offers unparalleled opportunities. Use of drones and robots could extend as far as unmanned patrolling of public spaces such as parks and parking lots.
Drones could potentially be deployed during public protests, respond to incidents of shooting before human units can reach the scene, or even spot vehicles experiencing breakdowns on highways. They may be dispatched to a site fully autonomously – a tactic already being employed by the Dublin Police. The force believes that these robots, equipped with two-way communication features, will be of service within the next two months.
According to Officer Lattanzi, the technology will enable anyone requiring emergency assistance — be it police, fire, or medical — to communicate directly with their command center through the robot. Hamilton County has advanced even further in this field by developing the technological capability to link drone cameras with the county’s camera systems.
Interestingly, critics continue to voice considerable anxiety about these emerging technologies. ACLU of Ohio’s Chief Lobbyist, Gary Daniels, contends that the unchecked growth of surveillance within the grasp of the government will ultimately compromise the privacy of Ohio’s residents. Daniels stresses the necessity of legal regulations around the use of these technologies by law enforcement, contending that internal protocols within sheriff’s departments and police forces are insufficient.
Daniels argues for the creation of mechanisms to hold employees accountable and prevent camera misuse. He believes that the cornerstone of alleviating public unease surrounding this topic is transparency. Central to his argument is an audit trail, a record of any interaction made with the system in a traceable line of investigation. His colleague, Sabers, notes, ‘We can run an audit at any time to see what you’re doing.’
This isn’t the first time law enforcement has had its hands on personal data. For many years, they have possessed access to databases filled with people’s personal information. To handle such sensitive information, law enforcement agents undergo meticulous background checks and are instructed to adhere to all applicable state laws and internal guidelines.
Indeed, with the advent of technology, surveillance has become an unavoidable reality in our lives. As Sabers states, ‘There’s hundreds of cameras everywhere. We are being recorded everywhere. However, law enforcement doesn’t have access to all of these but as society grows and tech grows, there’s likely very little areas…that aren’t covered by some type of camera.’
Daniels suggests that current legislation regarding surveillance technology resembles the dubious lawfulness of the wild, wild west. He acknowledges that even with updated regulations, it may be unrealistic to believe that the ACLU would ever be entirely at ease with the utilization of these technologies. However, the conversation around the implications of such advancements in surveillance technology must continue, so as to strike a balance between leveraging technological capabilities for public safety and preserving the sanctity of individual privacy.