Is Big Brother watching?

A Department of Homeland Security program calls for the installation of around 180 surveillance cameras in the Boston metropolitan area, including eight in Cambridge—a prospect that has sown confusion and concern on the Cambridge City Council.

In response, the Cambridge Civic Unity Committee, chaired by City Councillor Marjorie C. Decker, will be holding a meeting on Jan. 22 to discuss the surveillance program and to address community concerns.

“The fact that [the cameras] were installed is news to me, and to most of my colleagues,” Decker said. “It’s a little disconcerting.”

According to Donald E. McGough, director of the Boston Office of Emergency Preparedness, $4.6 million has been invested since 2004 to install the network of cameras that runs through the nine cities and towns comprising the Boston Metropolitan Area.

While the operation of individual cameras is left to local police departments, the network is supervised by the Office of Emergency Preparedness, which can take control of the cameras with local permission.

The Cambridge Police Department did not respond to interview requests regarding the surveillance program.

McGough said that the network “can and will be used for [the] sharing of information beyond just video,” and includes data and voice communication capabilities as well.

But confusion has arisen among the councillors about whether the cameras have been installed, and, if so, what they are being currently used for. McGough said that while he was aware of plans to install cameras in Cambridge, he was unsure if the cameras had already been installed or if they were operational.

Councillor Craig A. Kelley said that the cameras, which are administered by the Cambridge Police commissioner, are installed but not in use. The cameras will only be used during an “emergency evacuation situation,” Kelley said, adding that he did not know the locations of the cameras.

Most city councillors interviewed said they were not sure whether they support the installation of the cameras, preferring to reserve judgement until next week’s hearing.

Councillor Sam Seidel said he was wary of encroachments by state and federal officials into the operation of the cameras and the processing of the taped material, noting that it was important to determine where the material was stored.

“As we get further and further away from the local community, the more wary I become,” Seidel said. “If this ends up becoming a purely federal program, I want to know a whole lot more. If it’s purely local decisions, by local players, I feel more comfortable.”

Local political pundit Robert R. Winters, a Harvard Extension School instructor, dismissed the suggestion that civil liberties were threatened by surveillance cameras.

“I see this as completely benign, completely a non issue,” Winters said, noting that surveillance cameras commonly operate around ATM machines and bus stops. “The two words that say it all are ‘public street.’ A public street is just that: you are out in public, and every pair of eyes on every human being is doing surveillance on you. It’s just the way it is. I don’t understand this misplaced notion of privacy there.”

The Boston Globe reported that opposition from residents has thus far prevented the installation of 12 cameras Brookline.

The Brookline town selectmen will vote on Jan. 13 whether to become only the second municipality in the country to reject federal funding for Homeland Security cameras. The only city that has done so to date is Washington, D.C.

—Staff wroter Sarah J. Howland can be reached at showland@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Peter F. Zhu can be reached at pzhu@fas.harvard.edu.