Big Bother

Press coverage of new Fairmount Park cameras irks the cops.

by Doron Taussig

Anybody who watched the evening news on March 7 or picked up the following day's paper learned that the Police Department was installing surveillance cameras in Fairmount Park. They subsequently learned the number of cameras (three), their precise locations (West River Drive and behind the Art Museum) and activities that would cause the cameras to alert the police (such as someone moving quickly toward a car, or someone matching the description of the Fairmount Park rapist).

One would think the police would keep such details quiet. But now, any criminal who caught the evening news knows exactly what to avoid. Still, Deputy Police Commissioner Charles Brennan says this was no brain-cramp, and he's upset about the media coverage of the announcement — in particular, a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial titled "Duh! Be smarter with cameras in park," which suggested the Fairmount Park rapist "may well be smarter than the police."

Brennan says he "very purposefully told [the press] that this is a proof-of-concept of technology." The media, he says, suggested that the cameras were intended to catch or deter criminals, then explained how to avoid them, making the police look a little silly.

"We're not under any illusions that we're going to catch a lot of crooks," Brennan says. "We are interested in streaming video wirelessly, because if we can do it [in Fairmount Park], we can do it anywhere."

Stories in both the Daily News and Inquirer did make it clear that police were testing technology, the latter under the headline "Fairmount Park surveillance to begin: Three wireless cameras will start scanning the areas within two weeks, in part as a response to the Fairmount Park rapist." But at least one television newscast came across as a lesson in how to avoid getting captured breaking the law on film. They not only showed the cameras but announced the locations and what behavior — e.g., being a Hispanic man on a bicycle — could trigger them. Even if the cameras are just being tested, would it have made sense to omit details and create a parkwide deterrent?

Brennan says he didn't want to mislead the press and public into thinking there was a Big Brother-like system in the park when there isn't. But he expects to have it both ways. The editorial writer "doesn't understand that most people probably don't know where those cameras are," Brennan says, noting that people don't watch the news that carefully. "All you know right now is there are cameras in the park."