Presentation state of surveillance. Im thuy vu. Last june, we learned the National Security agency has been collecting americans phone records and email for years. As a National Conversation continues about the federal governments access to private information, local Law Enforcement in california are experimenting with new crimefighting tools eyes on the street and in the skies feeding images to command centers. Amanda pike with the center for investigative reporting shows us some of the new technologies now being tested. Pike officer Rob Halverson of the Chula Vista Police department is testing a technology that could change how police fight crime. [ police radio chatter ] hes on a call to verify the identity of a woman just arrested for possession of narcotics. [ dog barks ] he doesnt need to ask her name or check her i. D. He just takes her picture. Halverson just look here, please. Pike his tablet uses facialrecognition software to find the suspects mug shot and criminal history. Halverson you can lie about your name, you can lie about your date of birth you can lie about your address. But tattoos, birthmarks, scars dont lie. Pike police have access to more data than ever before, raising questions about how that information is used and stored. The tablet is part of a Pilot Program in san diego county. Halverson its been very helpful and some people just have to have the threat of okay, you dont want to tell us who you are. Were just gonna take a photo of you, and were gonna be able to compare. And then when people kind of realize the technology we now have theyre more likely to tell us their real name and that. Pike more and more, police are using biometrics biological markers from face scans and palm prints in addition to fingerprints, to identify suspects. Fingerprints themselves have been revolutionized. Now theyre taken on a mobile scanner. Theyre sent thousands of miles away to this highly secure fbi complex in west virginia. Mckinsey this is next generation identification. Pike these servers are the heart of the fbis next generation identification program, or ngi. Officially launching this summer, the billiondollar program will add facial scans and other biometrics to the existing trove of 137 million fingerprints. These computers analyze each fingerprint and photo that officers send. Mckinsey it comes to these servers, and these servers actually do the searches all 137 million of them and then if they get a hit they go down and pick some information out of the storage to send the criminal history back to the querying officer. Pike this data center runs up to 160,000 searches a day. Mckinsey its a big one. You can picture it as being a football field on top of another football field. Pike the fbi has been collecting fingerprints since the early 1900s. Prints were originally checked by hand, and it could take months to find a match. Now computers do the same work in minutes. But until recently the fbi had no easy way to search palm prints and mug shots taken at the time of arrest. That frustrated agents like jeremy wiltz, the acting assistant director of criminal Justice Information services. Wiltz we could do very little with the mug shots that we had. If we were collecting palm prints, we could do very little with those. We had nothing that really searched those. So for unsolved crimes you would struggle to be able to search that stuff. So insert ngi. Pike any local lawenforcement officer connected to ngi can submit an image and get a list of faces with matching features. Wiltz so these would be the candidates that would come back. Pike the fbi is also adding iris scans to the database because each persons eye contains a unique pattern thats easy to capture. For wiltz, the real value of ngi is solving cold cases. Wiltz think about how powerful that is. I cant wait till those Success Stories come out. Its gonna be worth its weight in gold of why we developed ngi. Lynch the biggest concern and what people need to know about next generation identification is that anybody could end up being in that database. Pike Jennifer Lynch is a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier foundation, which is suing the fbi to find out exactly what data the agency is collecting. Lynch the way that ngi is set up the fbi has said is that theyre just including mug shots, but that is really just a policy that the fbi has taken. Theres no law that says that they have to limit the inclusion of images to mug shots. Pike the fbi acknowledges that its facialrecognition system sometimes flags the wrong people. 15 of the time, the suspect wont be among the top 50 hits. Lynch those people whose face images come up suddenly have to prove their innocence, rather than the government having to prove their guilt, and thats completely different, again, from how our democracy has been set up. Pike privacy advocates worry that a growing web of traffic monitors, licenseplate readers, and networked security cameras will soon allow police to track our every move all without a warrant. The legal issues over how these new technologies are used and who has access to all of this information are far from settled. In california, one of 10 states that guarantees a right to privacy the new tools pose a challenge where to draw the line between safer streets and spying. [ telephone ringing, radio chatter ] at a hightech nerve center in Los Angeles Police grapple with this question every day. Romero about 1,000 cameras in the city are fed and monitored here mostly for investigative purposes. Pike captain john romero commands the realtime analysis and Critical Response division which tracks crimes across the city, with an uptothe minute map of every incident thats reported. Romero a small picture of a bomb would be a bomb call. The masks are robbery calls. The fists are assault crimes. Pike romero says new technologies allow the department to do predictive policing, determining when and where crimes are more likely to occur. As part of a new initiative, police also monitor private cameras near the Hollywood Sign and warn off interlopers through a speaker. Romero they are trespassers at this point. Pike romero believes that while the public may be uneasy about being watched, theyll soon see the benefits. Romero in early america, when we started putting up streetlights, people thought that this is the government trying to see what were doing at night to spy on us. And so, over time, things shifted and now if you tried to take down streetlights in los angeles or boston or anywhere else people would say no, its a Public Safety. Youre hurting our Public Safety just so you can save money on lighting. I think that the cameras will eventually get there, where cameras will not be a problem in the future. Pike across town, Sergeant Doug iketani of the l. A. County Sheriffs Department recently supervised an experiment involving cameras on a whole new level. He gave the center for investigative reporting an exclusive account of the test. Iketani the system was kind of kept confidential from everybody in the public. A lot of people do have a problem with the eye in the sky the big brother so in order to mitigate any of those kind of complaints, we, basically, kept it pretty hushhush. Pike the array of cameras on this aircraft records highresolution images of a 25squaremile area for up to six hours. It can track every person and vehicle on the ground, beaming back the pictures in real time. Its citywide surveillance on an unprecedented scale. Mcnutt what we essentially do is a live version of google earth only with a full tivo capability. It allows us to rewind time and go back and see events that we didnt know occurred at the time they occurred. Pike ross mcnutt is the president of Persistent Surveillance Systems in dayton, ohio, one of the few companies in the u. S. That does widearea surveillance. Mcnutt probably a little easier to follow, isnt it . Pike mcnutt developed a similar system in the air force that was used in iraq and afghanistan. Mcnutt it was at the height of the i. E. D. Problem, and our objective was to be able to follow the bombers from where the bomb went off back to the house that they were building the bombs and be able to use that. Towards the end of the time when the system was deployed we looked at it and said hey, theres some real lawenforcement applications to this. Pike mcnutt has tested the technology in philadelphia, baltimore and dayton where he says it provided police with useful leads on shootings, armed robberies, and narcotics cases. The l. A. County Sheriffs Department tested widearea surveillance in 2012 over compton, a compact city with a high crime rate. Mcnutt we literally watched all of compton during the times that we were flying. Anywhere within that whole area, we can zoom down live or after the fact to resolutions just barely to be able to follow people. Iketani my first initial thought was like oh, big brother. Were gonna have a camera flying over us. But with the widearea surveillance you would have the ability to solve a lot of the unsolvable crimes with no witnesses, no videotape surveillance, no fingerprints. Pike from a mobile command center mcnutt monitored 911 calls and coordinated with officers on the ground. Mcnutt there had been a rash of crimes in compton with people getting necklaces snatched. So the l. A. Sheriffs depament asked us to investigate this. Iketani yeah, i remember this call. It was basically our typical middleaged woman walking down the street with a friend of hers having a conversation. A young male approaches her. And as hes just walking down the street she thinks hes just a regular pedestrian doesnt notice anything about him. Grabs the necklace off of her neck, runs down the street. [ siren wails ] in traditional policing, we wont be able to solve these types of crimes. 99 of the time, were not gonna find anybody. Mcnutt we went to the address and we watched it, and what we saw was somebody getting out of a car here. And then the person walks down the street here while the car circles around to the other side of the block. And what you have is a person walking down the road there. In just a moment here is where the necklace is stolen. Right there. And then the persons gonna run off quickly to get into the car, back into the car thats driven around the block. And then we can follow that person off. Pike the system doesnt have the resolution to identify license plates or people. A person is just a pixel. Analysts track the car and rely on cameras at traffic lights or gas stations to capture a closeup image. In this case the suspects eventually drove out of camera range without being identified. But iketani says the experiment still gave police some valuable leads. Iketani now we know that that car was involved. So that way, our deputies can start monitoring those streets. Maybe they will see that car driving by with the two bad guys in there and maybe we can stop them and arrest them. Pike so far, no Police Department has purchased the system. Iketani says it cant provide the kind of detailed images that would hold up in court. Iketani it was a great experiment, but in the end the resolution just wasnt enough for us to use it here on a daytoday basis. Pike mcnutt believes that persistent surveillance could lead to a lasting drop in crime, but acknowledges privacy concerns. What happens when the Technology Improves . Is the future a permanent record of our every move . Mcnutt there is a tradeoff between security and some aspects of privacy. By the fact that were actually able to provide useful information against multiple crimes per mission and contribute to solving everything from murders to, in the case you saw, a necklace snatch, that allows us to provide more security with less loss of privacy than any of the other options that are out there. Pike for now, deputies are back to patrolling the streets of compton from the ground. But they say that if the Technology Improves theyll take another look at widearea surveillance. Iketani im sure that people once they find out that this experiment went on they might be, you know, a little upset but knowing that we cant see into their bedroom windows we cant see into their pools, we cant see into their showers, you know, im sure theyll be okay with it. With the amount of technology out in todays age with cameras on atms, at every 7eleven, every supermarket, pretty much every light pole all the licenseplate cameras, the redlight cameras, people have just gotten used to being watched for the most part. [ indistinct shouting ] pike but not everyone. These protesters in oakland fear that police will soon be able to watch anyone, anytime with little oversight. Woman just say no just say no pike for months they fought a plan to create what they called a citywide Surveillance System an Extensive Network of livecamera and data feeds. [ indistinct shouting ] in march they convinced the city council to scale back its plans for now. Man democracy is worth it pike but as Police Experiment with evermoresophisticated technologies the debate will continue on the balance between security and privacy and where to draw that line. Vu a key tool for solving crime used to be eyewitnesses someone who sees something with their own eyes and describes it to police or in court. But as we just saw electronic eyes and ears can capture more information not just of criminals, but all of us. How effective are they and at what cost . Scott shafer takes it from here. Shafer new and evolving Surveillance Technology what does it mean for police, prosecutors, and lawabiding citizens worried about their privacy . Joining me to discuss the implications are mike sena, director of the Northern CaliforniaRegional Intelligence Center david greene senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier foundation and Jennifer GranickCivil Liberties director at the Stanford Center for internet and society. Well, let me begin with you, jennifer. We heard that sheriffs deputy from los angeles saying were already being oncamera everywhere with atms and redlight cameras, fastrak. So whats the big deal . How is this different . Granick whats different is whether all that information is aggregated and one party in this case, the government can get ahold of all of that because it means that they know so much about us that was really something that was never recorded before or even was just recorded for specific purposes, and now it can be used for more general policing, or it could be abused. Shafer but for general policing isnt that a good thing . Dont we want to be safe . Granick theres an assumption that if theres less privacy, theres automatically this uptick in security and that people want that. I dont think we can just assume that were trading privacy for security every time and people like it. Its more complicated than that. Shafer well, mike sena, youre the director of this Northern CaliforniaRegional Intelligence Center these socalled fusion centers. There are six of them in california. Youre constantly in touch with other lawenforcement agencies sharing information, collecting information. Whats the best rationale for doing that for collecting all this data and keeping it . Sena well theres also a misperception about what data is being collected how much data there is out there. We have pieces of data. When you look at Law Enforcement across america theres 18,000 lawenforcement agencies all using different systems. So our big function, for the most part, is trying to collect what lawenforcement data already exists and bring that into our centers. Shafer so, whats the misperception . Sena that we have access to things like the fastrak that we have access to cameras all over the place. There really arent that many cameras, and theres a misperception of what the efficiency is of cameras. Technology alone doesnt solve any crimes. Its a combination of people analysts and technology but if you dont have all those pieces you cant really bring that data together efficiently. Greene i think what we heard the l. A. Sheriff say was well, people have cameras on them all the time. In a few years theyre not even gonna care, and i actually find that very disturbing. And i dont know that we should accept that and throw in the towel and say well, we have cameras on us so we dont have any rights at all. Granick the thing we have to realize is that crime is not what most of us are doing most of the time. Most of the time were just lawabiding citizens going about our business and to be under surveillance all the time has a Chilling Effect as we go to the doctor, as we go to our churches or mosques as we interact with our friends, or political meetings, and then when you see populations that are receiving the attention of extra policing, a lot of times people dont like it. You know, oakland didnt want the domain awareness program. New york city had a lot of opposition to the stopandfrisk. Shafer well, and, mike sena thats a good point. Is there an element of profiling thats necessary here . Sena not really, you know because crime is often its random, you know . You have no clue of where its gonna be or what cameras will be able to collect the information you need. You look at the Boston Marathon bombing. If those private cameras hadnt been operating at that time, theres a good possibility they never would have found out who committed that crime. Shafer whats the risk and ill put this to anybody of the wrong person being fingered as the assailant . Sena inhat type of technology that they demonstrated there or any of the type of technologies that they have out there, they arent the one thing that says, this person is guilty. And its up to the prosecutor to look at that and say, do we have enough to move forward with the prosecution . Its up to a judge and a jury to decide where does it go from there. Shafer jennifer or david, what concerns do you have in that regard about the innocence . Granick well, one of the things i think is really different is when youre collecting information ahead of time, when theres no crime we know thats been committed, and nothings happened and the governments just collecting information, just in case. Thats a big difference from when something happens, like the Boston Marathon bombing and you go to information thats in the hands of private parties the government gets sometimes with a warrant sometimes with other Legal Process and then starts to piece the case together. We know someones done something and were looking for that person. Shafer but in that case you did have to watch everyone to look for the right person. Granick well, no, because the bombing happened at a particular location. So then you get the cameras from that location. It wasnt that there was a plane that was flying over all of boston, all of miami, all of chicago, all of new york, and then we were just sort of looking through those pictures or keeping them, just in case. Shafer david, what is the difference, in your mind between what were talking about here, with a lawenforcement agency doing surveillance versus google and facebook and linkedin collecting all this information with or without our knowledge . And theyre using it to make money. Theres really no public purpose. Its just the bottom line, in that sense. Whats the difference . Greene well, i think the main difference is that we have a different relationship with the government and with Law Enforcement in particular than we do with our search engine. Our relationship with our government, i think is one of not being watched by them all the time. What we do see with google and yahoo and internetservice providers is, at least the ability to try and control. It might require you to be a knowledgeable consumer to do so, but to have some control over how much of your information is collected and what use is made of it and you also have the ability to opt out of that, as well. Its hard to opt out of Law Enforcement. Granick the Internet Companies are using our information to market things to us. The police are using information to put us in jail. Sena id actually like to disagree. Our goal isnt to put people in jail, but it is to protect Public Safety. And as far as the gathering of information and what we do, as far as the aggregation and followup, it also helps us to identify folks that havent been engaged in crime, eliminating folks that could be potential suspects with the data that weve collected. Me, as a citizen, as well, i dont need to be followed all day long and thats not the role of Law Enforcement. Its not to follow folks all day long. But the technology acts as a pointer system. It doesnt tell you that somebody committed a crime specifically. It just points in that direction. Shafer how long is this data kept . Sena photography, visual collected data, automated licenseplate readers its 12 months. Thats the government code in california, at least for visual data. Shafer mike is there a different standard for this surveillance and privacy, when youre talking about, Say International terrorism, versus local Law Enforcement where youre looking for someone who snatched a purse . Sena there are rules regarding the way intelligence is collected, the way information is collected in the country. And after september 11th there were folks that actually wanted to get rid of those restrictions. But it was actually state and local Law Enforcement folks that i represent that said, no, we need to keep this. Our role as Public Safety and Law Enforcement is to protect the public but also uphold the constitution of the united states. Shafer jennifer what would you add to that . Granick i agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately, i dont think thats the way our courts and our investigators are actually doing it. Ly theres no question in my mind that lawenforcement agencies sharing information properly can help solve crimes. I think the hard question is with Something Like cameras. You have this ability to follow people around on the public streets. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment didnt prohibit a Single Police officer from following you but it was just infeasible for everyone to be followed all the time. Now we have technology that makes it possible for us to see where every car or where every person or almost every person is. Shafer mike. Sena Law Enforcement doesnt have that capability to track people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You know, the technology isnt quite there. Granick yet. Sena there are things in those videos and pictures. And, for me, even a person that has worked in the Technology Field with the folks that are designing things and whatever the feature may be, i dont see that in my career. Greene we know that local Law Enforcement actually has the technological capability of actually tracking mobile phones, as you walk around with your mobile phone even if your phone is off. Shafer weve talked a lot about the privacy implications and some of the risks and constitutional questions. To what extent do the laws need to be updated . I mean, technology is changing so quickly. Is it possible for the law to keep up . Granick yeah, im a lawyer, so i like to believe its possible for the law to keep up, but we have a long way to go. You know, the Fourth Amendment needs to catch up, because what is our privacy in public spaces when we have technology that can monitor us to such a much greater extent . We have this age of big data where Data Analysis can put these pieces together and find out so much more about us than any individual piece we might give up or choose to share. Shafer mike sena, you were nodding when jennifer was saying we need to update the laws so you agree . Sena oh, absolutely. I agree. We definitely need to keep the laws up to speed on what were doing, but its hard, and its not just what Law Enforcement is doing. Its what the criminal groups are doing with technology, which its hard for Law Enforcement to keep pace. Were always behind in that realm. Shafer david, what should local communities, local governments, and citizens what should they be thinking about . What questions should they be asking . Greene well, i think a good question to ask, really, is what is the relationship between government and its citizenry . And, to me, a government really should be really hesitant to enter into a relationship where its just constantly collecting information. I think its very easy what ive seen you see it with the n. S. A. , and you see it on the local level is that having the ability to collect information it seems innocuous and it seems easy it becomes difficult to stop. Shafer and, mike sena from someone from the inside of this kind of an operation what questions do you ask of the people who are overseeing what you do . Sena you know, the hard part is that expectation of privacy in public spaces. What is that . And, really, the bigger part of this and something that im a big advocate for is Building Communities of trust actually having conversations with communities. Shafer jennifer is there enough transparency to even know what the right questions to ask are . Granick at this point in time we have almost no rules about how information is used or disseminated, and how do we tell if its worth it . We need to keep track of abuses, keep track of successes in fighting crime, and have a sense of what do we need to do where we can enhance the Public Safety mission without overpolicing. Shafer lots of questions. We just touched the surface. Thank you all very much. Mike sena, Jennifer Granick, dave greene, thanks a lot. All thank you. Vu as Technology Advances the struggle to find balance between privacy and security will play out in unexpected ways. Its clear the debate and discussion will continue. Im thuy vu. Thanks for joining us. Narrator funding for this program is provided by the Gruber Family foundation and by the members of kqed. A coproduction of kqed and the center for investigative reporting. Announcer a kqed television production. Larriva its like holy mother of comfort food. Kastner throw it down. Its noodle crack. Patel you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. Crowell okay, im the bacon guy, right . Hoofe oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. Man it just completely blew my mind. Woman it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. Sbrocco oh, please. I want the Dessert First [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait