One of the symptoms of a totalitarian nation is the surveillance of its citizens. That is why security camera systems in this land of the free are problematic. It's possible that Americans could wake up one day and find that they aren't as free as they thought they were -- and that this was ostensibly done for their own safety.

This is the problem Pittsburgh City Council is facing. Last September, council members agreed that $3.45 million -- most of it courtesy of a federal grant -- be spent on installing a system of security cameras in public places. Given the new threat of terrorism and the old menace of crime, plus the ubiquity of private surveillance cameras at businesses anyway, it was hard to argue that cameras in public places had absolutely no justification.

But in an era when civil liberties have too often become a casualty in the war on terror, it is imperative that council tread carefully lest it slide down a slippery slope. The encouraging news is that a good-faith effort appears to have been made to do just that, but it's still a work in progress.

When council authorized the camera project last year, it wisely insisted on a privacy policy. This week that ordinance was sent to council, which may act upon it next week. (The camera system hasn't been put out to bid yet, but cameras could be in use by the end of the year.)

There is much reassuring language in the ordinance, starting with a preamble that recognizes that a balance must be struck between the new camera technology and the need "to protect city residents' constitutional rights."

Many of the provisions are reasonable. Cameras could be used only in public areas experiencing a pattern of crime and where cameras might be useful in combatting it. No audio would be permitted. The cameras couldn't be made to pan, tilt or zoom to target individuals absent a reasonable suspicion (as a practical matter, City Information Systems Director Howard Stern said that, except in emergencies, no one will be monitoring the cameras anyway).

But some of the prohibitions, for example the automatic tracking of specific individuals, come with a recurring caveat: "Except as provided in the applicable [Department of Public Safety] regulations and procedures" -- and those apparently won't be released to the public. Civil libertarians are rightly concerned and council should not dismiss their fears.

The devil here will be in the details -- details that, if kept secret, have the potential to gut language that seems good on its face. Council needs to keep the spirit of sensitivity to civil liberties that the privacy ordinance purports to embrace. In approving appropriate camera use, don't make Big Brother a resident of Pittsburgh.