Fight for privacy only beginning

Howmuch of your privacy are you willing to surrender in exchange for security? Howconcerned are you that the government has the capacity to trace your comings and goings? Howbothered are you by license tag readers, surveillance cameras, red light monitors, websites that track your movements, retailers that collect and share your buying habits?

The privacy debate— always on a low simmer— came to a boil recently when MiamiNewTimes reported that theMiami-Dade Public Safety departmentwas seeking a grant to test a system calledHawkeye II, a so-called persistent surveillance system.

TheHawkeye has the capacity to fly high over a target area taking one photo a second. Should an event of interest occur— say a burglary, a shooting, a suspicious fire, an armed robbery— the device can backtrack a frame at a time, tracing the suspected perpetrator to his or her pre-crime home.

Hawkeye sounds like aworthy crime fighting partner. Making the streets safe is nearly always a winner.

Still, the programhas a “big brother-iswatching-you” feel that troubles civil libertarians. The American Civil LibertiesUnion argues that constant surveillance of a 35-square-mile area is an unquestionable invasion of privacy.

Metro Mayor Carlos Gimenez sees it anotherway.

“You have no expectation of privacy when you step outside,” he told TheMiami Herald. “I have no expectation of privacy in my backyard.”

Shortly after theHawkeye programhit the papers and airwaves, the Public Safety department dropped the idea, however intriguing it sounded. For the time being, Miami-Dade residentswon’t have toworry about an eye in the sky peering down at all that unfolds below.

But that does not mean the issue has gone away. Privacy debates will only intensify as technology evolves and fear of crime and terrorism growalong with it. AndHawkeye — or some more sophisticated version of it — will be back for a second look. In fact, it’s getting that look in Baltimore, Dayton, Ohio, Philadelphia andCompton, Calif.

In Juarez, Mexico, Hawkeye helped police detect the formation of a violent gang and stopped a riot in the midst of its formation. Based on testimonials like that, Persistent Surveillance Systems, the company that developed the technology, iswinning supporters both in lawenforcement and with the public.

Ageneration ago a surveillance system capable of recording all human activity in a 35-square-mile swathwould have been universally rejected. Today the same technology, while not without critics, is regarded as just another tool in the fight against terrorism.

Dowe have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy in our backyards? Is the expectation of privacy different today than itwas 28 years ago?

Judging fromthe criminal journey of suspected pot grower Michael Riley, the answer back thenwasn’t so simple.

Rileywas charged with growing marijuana in a building on his five acre farm on the strength of surveillance froma helicopter 400 feet overhead.

At his trial, Riley successfully argued that he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and thewarrant leading to his arrest was flawed.

The state appealed andwon. Riley appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. He won.

The state took it to theU.S. Supreme Court. The statewon. Riley had no expectation of privacy. So that is the standard in force since 1989.

In this age of the ubiquitous surveillance camera and the airport pat down, havewe surrendered our expectation of privacy?

Is it too late to get it back? Dowe feel safer without it?

Dowe have a choice?

Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page EditorRosemary O’Hara, AndrewAbramson, Elana Simms, Gary Stein and Editor-in-ChiefHoward Saltz.