Photo by George Frey/Getty Images
When four U.S. passenger airliners were highjacked and the Twin Towers were brought down on September 11, 2001, ubiquitous video surveillance was not yet part of the U.S. security and policing landscape.
In fact, a total of 19 terrorists made their way through three of the nation’s busiest airports that day— Logan International in Boston, Massachusetts; Washington-Dulles in Virginia; and Newark International in New Jersey—as the coordinated attack unfolded, leaving behind only a single visual record of the movements of just two of the hijackers.
The first video evidence that put a face to the terrorists came from a small eight-camera, analog video recording system at the Portland, Maine, International Jetport.1 It was the only meaningful visual record of the movements of the terrorists that fateful morning, taken as Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari made their way through a security checkpoint in the tiny commuter terminal on their way to Boston.2
A few days after the attack, John Green, then a 21-year veteran of the FBI field office in Boston and a video analyst, worked to decipher the garbled multiplexed video recordings from the Portland airport. Using what was considered advanced video equipment at the time, Green directed the recovery of the first clear images of the hijackers, helping agents begin to build a picture of the terrorists responsible for the deaths of 2,977 people.3
In the following years, and primarily in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, video monitoring in the United States and elsewhere became a priority for almost every public facility deemed to be part of a nation’s critical infrastructure. The exploding analog video surveillance market soon gave way to new, less expensive, and more complicated digital technologies.
By 2011, just a decade after the attack on the U.S. homeland, cameras could be found almost everywhere where the public had access, including buses, taxis, trains, grocery stores, schools, and even churches.
The surveillance society was complete.
Evolution of Video Technology
Now, in 2021, video technology has evolved from simple monitoring, recording, and detection to powerful analytics and to a looming artificial intelligence (AI) architecture, which includes facial recognition that is already testing privacy concerns, ethical boundaries, and the technical limitations of most law enforcement agencies. The recent push for Smart Cities, integrated intelligence sharing infrastructures that automatically track crime trends, criminal activity, and public mobility, is possible only due to the powerful and growing capabilities of AI, computer algorithms that leverage video images, and increasingly powerful computer systems to process, analyze, and respond thousands of times faster than a human. AI technology not only responds to events instantly, but collates data to analyze colors, shapes, vehicles, suspicious human activity, and other related imaging in order to autonomously direct a police response, diverting appropriate law enforcement resources to an active event. Israeli-based AI and Computer Vision expert Zvika Ashani proffers that society is now at a tipping point where video is about to be among the most important investigative assets available to modern policing. Ashani maintains,
In the same way that IP video changed surveillance a decade ago, our industry is now feeling the impact of recent developments in Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deep Learning, Big Data, and Intelligent Video Analysis.4
Although AI technologies are not fully developed for law enforcement yet, former Farmington, New Mexico, Police Chief (Ret). Mike Burridge, who sits on the IACP’s Technology Committee and specializes in video applications for law enforcement, says that the profession may not yet be prepared to completely embrace AI in policing, but “intelligent video analysis” must start now and with every officer, before control is turned over to an AI entity. “Video is the most prolific source of evidence available to the police investigator today,” says Burridge.
Agency leaders need to take immediate steps to begin developing video literacy training programs so their officers can meet the challenges they face in a world where everything is already captured on camera.5
Police agencies are now recording more video than at any other time in history, yet few agencies have maintained the same pace in educating their officers about how to effectively work with video evidence. In 2001, a handful of mostly state police agencies had deployed in-car video systems, primarily to gather evidence of impaired driving incidents, although the stated purpose of the initial camera programs was to deter racial profiling. However, to get buy-in from rank-and-file officers for the initial rollout, in-car video systems were often depicted as the “Silent Witness” that could gather evidence for murdered officers who were no longer able to “speak for themselves.”6 For a number of years, installation of in-car video systems flourished.
Midway through the first decade after 9/11, body-worn video technology had not yet been fully developed. Trial programs in various law enforcement agencies around the world received mixed reviews. But, by 2013, the wear-able mobile video technology had improved dramatically and 32 percent of local police agencies in the United States had deployed cameras on police officers’ uniforms, producing significantly more visual data of police-public encounters than what was being captured by in-car video systems. By 2016, 47 percent of local police departments were deploying even more sophisticated body-worn camera systems, which produced far greater audio fidelity and video image resolution data than the old, and by then obsolete, analog in-car recording systems.7 Today, seven U.S. states now mandate body-worn video recording technology for law enforcement. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Carolina police agencies must put cameras on any officer who interacts with the public. Full compliance in all seven states is required by 2023.8
A Deluge of Data
Video is data intensive. As additional state legislatures look to implement similar laws, police agencies expect to produce more visual data than any other form of computer information, so much information that outsourcing storage and management to a third party is often the only viable and cost-effective strategy for agencies currently drowning in video data. For example, Axon, one provider of cloud-based storage solutions, reports it is managing and storing more than 120,000 TB of video data from 14,000 police agencies.9
As remarkable as the growth in police generated video recordings has become since 9/11, the visual surveillance industry as a whole has provided a far greater infrastructure for the ubiquitous production of video evidence. The CCTV industry is expected to continue its meteoric expansion of visual surveillance of our streets, businesses, schools, and homes, creating billions more dollars’ worth of evidence collection systems year after year. A recently published industry forecast paper by Allied Market Research called U.S. Video Surveillance Market by Component, Application, and Customer Type pro-jects a compounded annual growth of 13.9 percent in the visual surveillance industry from 2020 to 2027. According to the research, which polls manufacturers, experts, and industrial consumers, the annual U.S. market will be valued at $23.60 billion by 2027, up from $8.29 billion in 2019.10 Enhancing the security of U.S. cities is driving the growth of this market. The report states,
[The] rise in need for safety in high-risk areas, surge in transition from analog surveillance to IP cameras, and integration of Internet-of-Things boost growth of the U.S. video surveillance market. …. Furthermore, increase in trends toward development of smart cities is expected to offer lucrative video surveillance market opportunities.
Detective Steve Paxton, a digital forensic examiner with the Everett Police Department in Washington State, can personally attest to the exponential growth of video evidence. He says he has had a “front-row seat” to the yearly and dramatic increase in video evidence in his own agency. Paxton notes that in a municipality of approximately 110,000 residents, his audit of video data recovered by his agency shows a staggering increase in volume from 2013 to 2019. In 2013, Everett officers recovered 331 videos totaling 19.76 GB of data. In 2019, 34,590 videos were seized, totaling over 2,474 GB. Paxton’s study found a 94 percent compounded year-over-year growth of video submissions.11 The only dip detected in the upsurge of video acquisition by law enforcement since 9/11 occurred in 2020, at least in Everett, where Paxton’s team noted a “pandemic flattening” of the video growth curve, as the city’s streets were desolate for several months. But halfway through 2021, Paxton reports the intense workload of video recoveries is “back to normal.”12
The Everett Police Department is not the only agency that is experiencing the post-9/11 and post-pandemic technology surge in video evidence. Data compiled from a privately funded January 2021 survey of more than 400 law enforcement practitioners and investigators from around the world, the majority of whom were from U.S. police agencies, shows that 94 percent of respondents agree that video is a critical source of evidence in investigations. Respondents also reported that on average, 85 percent of all criminal investigations now involve video evidence. Despite these numbers, the disturbing reality is that many agencies are not yet investing in video training for investigators. In fact, 26 percent of survey respondents admit they have never attended any video courses and are, therefore, unaware of how to effectively or reliably deal with the evidence.13
“Every cop needs video knowledge, skills, and equipment in order to keep pace.”
The anticipated growth in the CCTV industry is both a blessing and a curse for police agencies that want to leverage the “eye on every corner” concept of community policing, but that have so far failed to develop internal competencies or technologies to meet the needs of investigators who must work with video in most criminal cases. Attorney Eric Daigle, past chair of the IACP’s Legal Officers Section and a leading legal expert in police use-of-force cases, says that most violent altercations between members of the public and the police are now captured on video, yet few agencies have committed to training investigators how to examine video evidence. “Video is just one witness, with all of its frailties. Too often investigators, chiefs, and prosecutors misinterpret what the video is showing,” says Daigle, who frequently presents video evidence in criminal courts and in disciplinary hearings. “Because a lot of video recording systems, including body-worn cameras and cellphones, drop images, motion is not always reproduced accurately,” he says. Daigle notes that since almost every individual has a cellphone today, every officer should expect to be recorded when they engage in a violent encounter, and every chief should ensure that investigators have the skills and knowledge to accurately interpret the images.14
West Jordon, Utah, Police Chief Ken Wallentine, who is also the president of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, is leading by example and has already invested in video literacy classes for his investigative staff. “We can’t afford the possibility that we’re misinterpreting video images or that we’re missing important visual evidence simply because our officers didn’t have the appropriate training,” says Wallentine. He adds that since his agency hosted pre-pandemic hands-on video examination classes for his investigators and technical support staff, video-centric casework has accelerated dramatically. With the new training and technology, the time needed to find the correct proprietary digital video codec has been reduced from days to just minutes. Today, all investigators now have instant access to an online software solution that gives detectives the ability to accurately review and analyze video evidence, even when they are not at their desks. Wallentine points out,
Most police agencies and academies are good at training officers how to shoot a gun, write reports, drive cars, and conduct interviews, but too few police executives understand the importance of ensuring their officers are video literate.
It’s hard to put a dollar figure on what we’ve saved due to increased productivity. My investigators now understand how video works, and they have instant access to purpose-built video investigation technology through an SaaS subscription model.15
“SaaS versus VSaaS are buzzwords every chief should know,” says Chief Burridge, who understands that on-premises video software, hardware, and storage technology costs are often out of reach for small- to medium-sized agencies. Burridge explains that SaaS stands for “Software as a Service” where advanced and up-to-date tools are hosted online and available to an entire agency at a fraction of the normal cost of giving every investigator his or her own license. VSaaS stands for “Video Surveillance as a Service,” a subscription model adopted by many body-worn and in-car video vendors that host cloud-based storage and data management services. “As video technologies continue to evolve, annual service contracts for best-in-breed video investigation software keeps agencies up to date and their investigators trained,” says Burridge.16 West Jordan’s Chief Wallentine believes the VSaaS model, combined with vendor training, is vital as video technology continues to become more integrated into every investigation.
Since video use in our society is exploding, I couldn’t imagine the increased costs some agencies are experiencing that have not yet committed to educating their investigators and to investing in SaaS solutions to expedite the examination of video evidence.
Newly minted Anchorage, Alaska, Police Chief Kenneth McCoy echoes Wallentine’s approach to video-centric investigation training.
More and more businesses and homeowners are installing video surveillance cameras to protect their properties. This presents a unique opportunity for the police and community to partner to address crime. Officers must become proficient in accessing and analyzing this powerful tool, which has redefined community policing.
Prior to his promotion, McCoy was an early adopter of video training, hosting an executive-level video seminar for Alaska’s police leaders through the FBI National Academy Associates. “The first step here was to educate senior police managers about how video actually works and what the potential dangers are if their investigative staff gets it wrong.” The seminar was an eye-opener and has led to the first video literacy class for police investigators in the state.17
The FBI, which offers numerous leadership programs for law enforcement leaders, has fully embraced video literacy training for state and local agency executives and command staff. Supervisory Special Agent James Moore of the FBI Training Division manages the FBI’s National Command Course (NCC), the Law Enforcement Executive Development Seminar (LEEDS), and the National Executive Institute (NEI). He maintains that video training has become a key element of all three of the executive leadership programs, which are offered to police executives. Moore states,
It is crucial that law enforcement executives are exposed to video literacy training to understand both the capabilities and limitations of digital video, in all of its forms. Video, without proper interpretation and analysis, does not always tell the whole story about what happened. Having this knowledge can save careers, prevent unnecessary lawsuits, and even save lives.18
The FBI National Academy, a 10-week senior police training program in Quantico, Virginia, has integrated an introduction to video-centric investigations into its prestigious Enrichment Speaker sessions. Buddy McGinnis, the FBI National Academy’s long-time forensic science program manager, has included video literacy training for his session students since the first days after 9/11. McGinnis argues,
When the towers came down and we saw those first pictures of the terrorists at the airport, it was clear that video was going to develop into the powerful investigative tool that it is today. Yet I’m surprised how few police leaders fully understand how video actually works.
McGinnis acknowledges that some agencies spend millions of dollars on video technology without giving their staff appropriate training or tools to work with video properly.
We are seeing that video evidence is now more common than fingerprints, DNA, and even eyewitnesses, yet when police managers come into my classes, it’s often the first time they are exposed to the truth behind video interpretation for police casework. They all leave our sessions with a determined goal of bringing video literacy to their officers.19
In California, Grover Beach Police Department Chief John Peters recently graduated from the inaugural FBI National Command Course, where video literacy training provided most of his classmates with their first exposure to how video data are actually created and why they must be accurately interpreted before the data are safe to use in criminal investigations and internal reviews. As an early adopter of video technology, his agency of 23 sworn officers has already fully integrated video into every aspect of its operations. Not only does each officer have a body-worn camera and in-car video systems, including license plate readers, the department also manages more than 70 community surveillance cameras purchased through grant funding and via a partnership with area businesses. “This is not just the future,” says Chief Peters. “This is the here and now, and video is critical to our task of serving and protecting our citizens.” He adds that most recruits exiting police academies in the early 2000s and in the wake of 9/11 had little experience with technology in general. “But in 2021, new officers want to know how to use technology in every aspect of their police work. Today’s recruits are not afraid of video.” In fact, Peters will be launching an aerial drone program in the new fiscal year, producing additional video data in search and rescue, patrol support, and SWAT operations. “I expect the officers working today and in the coming years to have a full working knowledge of video technology and the important role it plays in enhancing community safety,” says Peters.20
Former FBI Video Examiner John Green, who processed the first images of the hijackers in September 2001, is now the chief for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Forensic Audio/Image Analysis Unit in Boston. Green recalls that 20 years ago, with relatively few video examination requests, specialized expertise was normally required to analyze and process video evidence. “With the overwhelming amount of video collected by investigators today, there are not enough experts to go around,” he says. “Every cop needs video knowledge, skills, and equipment in order to keep pace.”
Since 9/11, video has become a part of every person’s daily experience. Video literacy among investigators is no longer a luxury—it is an imperative.
Notes:
1Stuart Miller, “Hijack Terrorists Caught on Security Camera,” Guardian, September 21, 2001.
2National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report.
3John Green (chief, Forensic Audio Video Image Analysis Unit, Office of Suffolk County District Attorney, MA), interview, May 25, 2021.
4Zvika Ashani, “The Future Is Here: Artificial Intelligence To Become Standard For Smart Cities,” SecurityInformed.com.
5Mike Burridge (retired chief, Farmington Police Department, NM), interview, May 21, 2021
6IACP, Digital Video Minimum Performance Specifications, v. 14 (Alexandria, VA: IACP, 2008).
7Brian A. Reaves, Local Police Departments, 2013: Equipment and Technology (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015).
8Body-Worn Camera Laws Database,” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 30, 2021.
9Bryan Giles (senior investigations engineer, Axon), interview, June 1, 2021.
10U.S. Video Surveillance Market (Allied Market Research, 2021).
11Steve Paxton, “The Massive Growth of Video Evidence: What Police Administrators Need to Know,” Police1, February 12, 2020.
12Steve Paxton (detective, Everett Police Department, WA), interview, June 1, 2021.
13iNPUT-ACE, 6 Key Trends in Video Evidence: 2021 Industry Survey (May 2021).
14Eric Daigle (attorney, Daigle Law Group, LLC), interview, May 25, 2021.
15Ken Wallentine (chief, West Jordan Police Department, UT), interview, May 28, 2021.
16Burridge, interview, May 20, 2021.
17Kenneth McCoy (chief, Anchorage Police Department, AK), interview, May 29, 2021.
18James Moore (supervisory special agent, FBI Training Division), May 20, 2021.
19Buddy McGinnis (forensic science program manager, FBI Laboratory Division), interview, May 20, 2021.
20John Peters (chief, Grover Beach Police Department, CA), interview, May 30, 2021.
Please cite as
Grant Fredericks, “Video & Policing 9/11 to Today: The Road to Video Literacy for Investigators,” Police Chief 88, no. 9 (September 2021): 102–106.
