Hidden cameras have emerged on utility poles outside the homes of individuals linked to the "Cop City" protest movement in Atlanta, raising significant privacy concerns. Installed in unmarked boxes, these cameras are part of a broader surveillance effort associated with the controversial police training center set to open in a forested area southeast of the city. The movement against this center dates back to 2021 and has involved both peaceful protests and incidents like the destruction of construction equipment and arson targeting Atlanta police vehicles.
Three of these cameras are specifically aimed at residences jointly raided by the Atlanta police, FBI, and ATF in February 2023. Authorities searched for evidence connected to the arson of police motorcycles during these raids. Another camera surveils a cultural and social center, adding to the tension within the community. Positioned about 30 feet above ground, these cameras have sparked questions about legality and oversight.
Neither the FBI nor the ATF acknowledges involvement with these cameras. Georgia Power, which owns the utility poles, has also denied ownership of the boxes containing the cameras. Legal precedents in states like Massachusetts, Colorado, and South Dakota stipulate that long-term surveillance of homes using utility pole cameras requires a warrant. This requirement seems to be overlooked in this situation, causing alarm among those being monitored.
Atlanta police justify the need for the training center as essential for providing "world-class" training facilities. The center is slated to occupy a 171-acre site, despite strong opposition from local activists who argue it represents an unnecessary expansion of police power. The police have intensified efforts to identify those responsible for past criminal activities related to the protests by offering a $200,000 reward and erecting 450 billboards across the country.
A resident of one of the surveilled homes described the experience as "humiliating." The feeling persisted following a raid when police allegedly found and displayed a nude Polaroid of her. The lack of transparency around these surveillance measures compounds her distress.
“I’m not sure which boxes you’re referring to.” – Chata M Spikes, Atlanta police spokesperson
The absence of search warrants further complicates the situation. An individual from the legal support team assisting those arrested last year stated that no warrants authorizing this level of surveillance have been produced. This omission raises legal and ethical questions about the methods employed by law enforcement in their investigations.
Nathan Freed Wessler from the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project criticized the use of hidden cameras without proper legal procedures.
“The surreptitiousness is pernicious.” – Nathan Freed Wessler, of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU
“categorically poses a new threat to privacy” – Nathan Freed Wessler, of the Speech, Privacy and Technology Project at the ACLU
The statements emphasize the potential dangers such covert operations pose to individual privacy rights. Legal experts also echo these sentiments, asserting that these surveillance measures "always require search warrants."