Privacy groups previously had pushed back against the prevalence of surveillance cameras, arguing that these should be targeted toward specific purposes such as combating crime and vandalism, rather than sweeping up images of crowds wholesale.
That changed with Monday’s two explosions at the marathon’s finish line. After that, law enforcement painstakingly plowed through thousands of images from commercial surveillance cameras, as well as those submitted by the camera- and cellphone-wielding public.
By late Thursday, the FBI had released images of two young men carrying backpacks and walking down the sidewalk where the explosions took place. One, wearing a dark cap, was described as Suspect 1; the other, in a white cap, was Suspect 2. The photos quickly went viral and the tips poured in.
Not long after law enforcement’s release of those photos Thursday, the bombing suspects, later identified as ethnic Chechen brothers Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, broke cover, resulting in a crime spree in which a Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus police officer was killed and an SUV hijacked.
During a police chase in the Boston suburb of Watertown, Suspect 1 (Tamerlan) was killed. As this was written, Suspect 2 (Dzhokhar) was believed holed up in a Watertown neighborhood, with much of the Boston metropolitan area shut down.
This manhunt could end well, with an apprehension, with Dzhokhar then to face heavy interrogation, which might reveal vital intelligence; or badly, with one more death, albeit a well-deserved one. But its lasting legacy in this country will be the accepted widespread use of surveillance cameras.
The notoriously privacy-conscious British already have acquiesced, after closed-circuit cameras helped crack a 2005 suicide bombing that killed 52 subway commuters in London. Now, London has the world’s largest surveillance network, with an estimated 10,000 cameras.
This week’s bombings likely will give impetus to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, now stalled in Congress over privacy considerations. The legislation encourages intelligence-sharing among private companies and federal agencies by exempting them from civil and criminal liability laws.
Following 9/11, Americans allowed the feds greater and easier access to their phone lines, cell towers, bank accounts, mail and even their library records — although many liberals argued that such intrusions were part of an effort by then-President Bush, who they detested, to undermine the Constitution.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, at least in political terms. President Obama, who was harshly critical of Bush’s anti-terror agenda during his first run for office in 2008 — only to adopt many of those policies himself once in office (with nary a peep from the left) — is now the one responsible for preventing further terror attacks. There’s no question it is a heavy responsibility, one few would want.
In the wake of last week’s events it is quite possible that Obama will push for further steps that in effect will further erode the expectations of privacy in both public and nonpublic places. It also is likely that those steps will be willingly accepted by much of the public.