narrator: funding for this program is provided by the gruber family foundation and by the members of kqed. a co-production of kqed and the center for investigative reporting. vu: cutting-edge technologies changing the way police fight crime. mcnutt: what we essentially do is a live version of google earth only with a full tivo capability. iketani: we, basically kept it pretty hush-hush. vu: the power to track more people and data than ever before. wiltz: it's gonna be worth its weight in gold. lynch: the biggest concern is that anybody could end up being in that database. [ siren wails ] vu: where to draw the line between security and privacy? mcnutt: there is a trade-off. [ indistinct shouting ] halverson: just look here, please. vu: a look at the state of surveillance. hello, and welcome to this special

presentation "state of surveillance." i'm thuy vu. last june, we learned the national security agency has been collecting americans' phone records and e-mail for years. as a national conversation continues about the federal government's access to private information, local law enforcement in california are experimenting with new crime-fighting 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 ] he's on a call to verify the identity of a woman just arrested for possession of narcotics. [ dog barks ] he doesn't need to ask her name or check her i.d. he just takes her picture.

halverson: just look here, please. pike: his tablet uses facial-recognition software to find the suspect's 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 don't 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: it's been very helpful and some people just have to have the threat of "okay, you don't want to tell us who you are. "we're just gonna take a photo of you, and we're gonna be able to compare." and then when people kind of realize the technology we now have they're 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 they're taken on a mobile scanner. they're 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 fbi's next generation identification program, or ngi. officially launching this summer, the billion-dollar 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: it's 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 law-enforcement 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 person's eye contains a unique pattern that's easy to capture.

for wiltz, the real value of ngi is solving cold cases. wiltz: think about how powerful that is. i can't wait till those success stories come out. it's 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 they're just including mug shots, but that is really just a policy that the fbi has taken. there's no law that says that they have to limit the inclusion of images to mug shots. pike: the fbi acknowledges that its facial-recognition system sometimes flags the wrong people. 15% of the time, the suspect won't 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 that's completely different, again, from how our democracy has been set up. pike: privacy advocates worry that a growing web of traffic monitors, license-plate 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 high-tech 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 real-time analysis and critical response division which tracks crimes across the city, with an up-to-the minute map of every incident that's 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, they'll 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 we're 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, it's a public safety. "you're 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 sheriff's 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 hush-hush. pike: the array of cameras on this aircraft records high-resolution images of a 25-square-mile area for up to six hours. it can track every person and vehicle on the ground,

beaming back the pictures in real time. it's 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 didn't 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 wide-area surveillance. mcnutt: probably a little easier to follow, isn't 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, there's some real law-enforcement 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 sheriff's department tested wide-area 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. we're gonna have a camera flying over us." but with the wide-area 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. sheriff's depament asked us to investigate this. iketani: yeah, i remember this call. it was basically our typical middle-aged woman walking down the street with a friend of hers having a conversation. a young male approaches her. and as he's just walking down the street she thinks he's just a regular pedestrian doesn't notice anything about him. grabs the necklace off of her neck, runs down the street. [ siren wails ] in traditional policing, we won't be able to solve these types of crimes. 99% of the time, we're 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 person's gonna run off quickly

to get into the car, back into the car that's driven around the block. and then we can follow that person off. pike: the system doesn't 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 close-up 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 can't 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 wasn't enough for us to use it here on a day-to-day

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 trade-off between security and some aspects of privacy. by the fact that we're 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 they'll take another look at wide-area surveillance. iketani: i'm sure that people once they find out that this experiment went on they might be, you know, a little upset

but knowing that we can't see into their bedroom windows we can't see into their pools, we can't see into their showers, you know, i'm sure they'll be okay with it. with the amount of technology out in today's age with cameras on atms, at every 7-eleven, every supermarket, pretty much every light pole all the license-plate cameras, the red-light 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 live-camera 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 ever-more-sophisticated 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 law-abiding citizens worried about their privacy? joining me to discuss the implications are mike sena, director of the northern california regional intelligence center david greene senior staff attorney at the electronic frontier foundation

and jennifer granick civil liberties director at the stanford center for internet and society. well, let me begin with you, jennifer. we heard that sheriff's deputy from los angeles saying we're already being on-camera everywhere with atms and red-light cameras, fastrak. so what's the big deal? how is this different? granick: what's 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 isn't that a good thing? don't we want to be safe? granick: there's an assumption that if there's less privacy, there's automatically this uptick in security and that people want that. i don't think we can just assume that we're trading privacy for security every time and people like it. it's more complicated than that. shafer: well, mike sena, you're the director of this northern california regional intelligence center these so-called fusion centers.

there are six of them in california. you're constantly in touch with other law-enforcement agencies sharing information, collecting information. what's the best rationale for doing that for collecting all this data and keeping it? sena: well there's 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 there's 18,000 law-enforcement agencies all using different systems. so our big function, for the most part, is trying to collect what law-enforcement data already exists and bring that into our centers. shafer: so, what's the misperception? sena: that we have access to things like the fastrak that we have access to cameras all over the place. there really aren't that many cameras, and there's a misperception of what the efficiency is of cameras. technology alone doesn't solve any crimes. it's a combination of people analysts and technology but if you don't have all those pieces you can't 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 they're not even gonna care,"

and i actually find that very disturbing. and i don't know that we should accept that and throw in the towel and say "well, we have cameras on us so we don't 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 we're just law-abiding 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 don't like it. you know, oakland didn't want the domain awareness program. new york city had a lot of opposition to the stop-and-frisk. shafer: well, and, mike sena that's a good point. is there an element of profiling that's necessary here? sena: not really, you know because crime is often -- it's random, you know? you have no clue of where it's 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 hadn't been operating at that time, there's a good possibility they never would have found out who committed that crime. shafer: what's the risk -- and i'll 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 aren't the one thing that says, "this person is guilty." and it's up to the prosecutor to look at that and say, "do we have enough to move forward with the prosecution?" it's 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 you're collecting information ahead of time, when there's no crime we know that's been committed, and nothing's happened and the government's just collecting information, just in case. that's a big difference from when something happens, like the boston marathon bombing and you go to information that's 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 someone's done something

and we're 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 wasn't 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 we're talking about here, with a law-enforcement agency doing surveillance versus google and facebook and linkedin collecting all this information with or without our knowledge? and they're using it to make money. there's really no public purpose. it's just the bottom line, in that sense. what's 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 internet-service 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. it's 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: i'd actually like to disagree. our goal isn't 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 follow-up, it also helps us to identify folks that haven't been engaged in crime, eliminating folks that could be potential suspects with the data that we've collected. me, as a citizen, as well, i don't need to be followed all day long and that's not the role of law enforcement. it's not to follow folks all day long. but the technology acts as a pointer system. it doesn't 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 license-plate readers -- it's 12 months. that's the government code in california, at least for visual data. shafer: mike is there a different standard for this surveillance and privacy, when you're talking about, say international terrorism, versus local law enforcement where you're 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 don't think that's the way our courts and our investigators are actually doing it.ly there's no question in my mind that law-enforcement 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 didn't 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 doesn't have that capability to track people 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. you know, the technology isn't 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 don't 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: we've 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, i'm a lawyer, so i like to believe it's 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 we're doing, but it's hard, and it's not just what law enforcement is doing. it's what the criminal groups are doing with technology, which it's hard for law enforcement to keep pace. we're 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 it's just constantly collecting information. i think it's very easy -- what i've 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 i'm 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 it's 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 over-policing. 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. it's clear the debate and discussion will continue. i'm 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 co-production of kqed and the center for investigative reporting.

announcer: a kqed television production. larriva: it's like holy mother of comfort food. kastner: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm 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.