We all know the ACLU is opposed to video surveillance in public places. Here are some of the reasons, as stated on their own site.
It has not proven effective
In truth, while it may not reduce crime, it certainly seems to make apprehension of the actual criminal(s) quicker and easier, thus freeing up needed resources for other duties. I have no statistics on this, but my guess would be conviction becomes easier also. That, to me, is effective.
It is susceptible to abuse.
What isn't? Any law enforcement tool can be and probably has been abused. There are unethical people and there always will be, that is no excuse to tie the ethical hands that preserve our freedoms by their dilligence.
Lack of limits or controls on camera use.
This is a concern that can be addressed, however probably never to the satisfaction of the ACLU. Even if most Americans are content with suggested checks and balances, the ACLU will always find a reason to gainsay the arguments of rational people. That is because the ACLU's concern is not about the security and peace of mind of the majority of the American public, but rather the ability of fringe groups to act out and disrupt.
It will have a chilling effect on public life.
This is one of those vague and nebulous statements the ACLU is so fond of throwing into the mix even though it can never be proven or disproven empirically. From personal experience, the chilling effect on public life is cast by the ACLU on the everyday lives of those who would display evidence of their mainstream religious beliefs and traditional family values.
Posted earlier at Stop the ACLU.