| Published by the American Library Association IFRT Report Intellectual Freedom Round Table No. 50-51, Winter 2003 |
| OTHER ISSUES | | | | CONTENTS | | | FIRST ARTICLE | | | PREVIOUS ARTICLE | | | NEXT ARTICLE | | | LAST ARTICLE |
|
When our city Police Department decided to add face recognition software to existing CCTV cameras, surveillance became an issue of public concern. The newspaper and some officials came out in opposition. City Council wanted feedback from citizens and citizens wanted more information, so funding was found to hold a public forum. I was asked to help in the planning because I’m known to be interested in civil liberties. (That’s because I keep forwarding interesting tidbits from IFAN to people in other city agencies.) My assignment was to find contact information for possible speakers and to assemble background information for the audience. It was a valuable learning experience for me. Much as I believe in citizen empowerment through information, I haven’t paid enough attention to the details of making it happen. And, it was a great way to get to know activists in the community. Our first step was identifying stakeholders in the issue. Surveillance is especially worrisome to minorities who fear being disproportionately suspected. Women also have reason to fear abuse of surveillance. Thus, our planning group included representatives from civic leagues, from human rights groups, from the police, and from League of Women Voters. The planning group brainstormed all the questions that biometric surveillance raised so that we would be sure to have panelists whose expertise covered the necessary ground. Then we merged the questions into categories:
Our specific questions were written out and shared with the panelists in advance because we wanted them to come prepared. For the audience, we assembled individual packets of information. We planned that questions from the audience would be collected in writing to eliminate position statements masquerading as questions. At the end, the audience would vote to advise City Council on whether to proceed with the project. We knew we needed a balance of pro and con in the panel. The city cable TV staff insisted they could only tape the event if it was exactly balanced. At the same time, we wanted the audience to learn and think about all sides of the issue, not just watch verbal ping-pong and become more polarized. And we had a very short deadline to get commitment from very busy experts. We managed to secure Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, John D. Woodward, Jr., senior policy analyst at RAND, and a business representative from Tampa, Florida where a similar system was installed. Our Chief of Police, a local attorney, and a moderator from the local PBS station completed the panel. In the midst of our planning came September 11. Some members of the planning group changed their own positions on the issues and we knew the audience would be in a very different frame of mind. Even though the panelists on both sides pointed out that the system would not catch terrorists, in October it was hard to talk about public safety and not evoke terrorism. The audience vote at the end of the program was two to one in favor of installing face recognition software. A FAQ on the issues can be found at http://www.vbgov.com/city_hall/hot_topics/recognition.asp. Although I’m disappointed in the decision to proceed, I think the thorough discussion of the issues has raised awareness of the need for citizen oversight. In addition to the program itself, cable-casts of the tape, links on the city website, and publicity have helped inform the community about privacy issues. Also, we now have more experience conducting a public forum on a complex issue that leaves the community better informed and less polarized than it was before. I’m pleased that the library was a part of this and that we are looking forward to more forums. When "public forum" is brought up in the context of libraries, it usually means the quiet exchange of thoughts between print and reader. We should be very glad that courts from Kreimer to Loudoun have recognized that kind of public forum in the library. Nevertheless, there is room for libraries to get into face to face forums where the people can talk out their concerns and set direction for government. |
| OTHER ISSUES | | | | CONTENTS | | | FIRST ARTICLE | | | PREVIOUS ARTICLE | | | NEXT ARTICLE | | | LAST ARTICLE |
| Published by the American Library Association IFRT Report Intellectual Freedom Round Table No. 50-51, Winter 2003 |