Kinnick cameras, while beneficial, raise civil-liberty concerns
Kinnick Stadium boasts some pretty impressive numbers: 70,585 seats, a record 36-straight sellouts from 2002 to 2008, and an $89 million renovation in 2006, according to the University of Iowa athletics' website.
But here's an additional "fun fact" you don't hear quite as often: The stadium and surrounding area boast 27 cameras whose footage is watched by some 300 security officers policing the crowd from afar.
The Editorial Board believes this monitoring is both necessary and beneficial in keeping the peace and pre-empting violent outbursts in such an impassioned atmosphere. However, we support limiting this video oversight. There is a threshold at which gains from physical protection no longer outweigh losses to privacy concerns, and the inclusion of 27 cameras approaches — if not surpasses — that tipping point.
Charles Green, the assistant vice president for the UI police, said officials use camera recordings solely to identify problematic situations or review footage upon request. The visual records are not kept permanently, he said, but he would not specify how long they are kept.
"We attempt to identify problems that present themselves during the game; this could be anything including fights, medical emergencies, smoking, alcohol consumption, et cetera," Green wrote in an e-mail. "If we notice something amiss, we send the appropriate personnel."
The system was implemented four years ago, and it has not prompted any complaints, Green said.
Perhaps this is because of a general acceptance of heightened security rather than a lack of widespread fan awareness.
As UI senior Tom Harmon said, "I don't think there's an expectation of privacy in a place like Kinnick — too many people in one place. And if there weren't cameras, there would just be more cops walking around the stadium."
Still, it's only fair to inform all fans and tailgaters of their new stardom on police officers' silver screens. Surreptitious monitoring doesn't increase security, and it unnecessarily infringes on personal autonomy — you can't object to something you don't know about, after all. In addition, notifying fans and tailgaters that cameras are actively recording could serve as a crime deterrent.
We also suggest that security officers manning cameras put an "expiration date" on the recordings, ensuring future abuse doesn't occur. Officers should tackle legitimate problems as they arise in real time, not retain hours of irrelevant footage.
Many of you will fire up the tailgating grills, purchase fizzy, concession-stand beer, or cheer on the Hawkeyes in the student section this weekend. Most of you will be courteous fans; some will forget this editorial, forget that a "higher power" is at work in the stands of Kinnick Stadium.
But though there is an inherent asset to having 27 lenses and 300 pairs of eyes on the beat, it's still important to ask: How much is enough, and when do individual freedoms trump airtight security?
comments powered by Disqus
