She pointed to what she felt have been some alarming examples of misuse:
At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, a police helicopter's night vision camera that was trained on protestors also recorded a couple's intimate rendezvous on a terrace.
That same year, a San Francisco cop used airport cameras to ogle female air travelers.
And in 2006, New York's police union sued the city for what it considered excessive monitoring during a contract dispute.
"There needs to be strict regulations in place in order to curb such abuses, and there also needs to be a culture where such abuses will not be acceptable," said Ngo.
Some also question whether the cameras deter terrorists.
"For the jihadist who is not concerned about being caught and is willing to kill themself during the execution of a bombing or any other terrorist type event, cameras are more of a forensic tool then they are a deterrent," said Jerry Hauer, former director of New York City's Office of Emergency Management and an ABC News consultant.
"I would much rather see devices that can detect explosives at a distance and sound an alarm the moment a threat vehicle gets near high risk," said Hauer. "Detection and intervention is better than remote observation by camera. I think we are putting too much money into band-aids like this and not real solutions for preventing an incident."
Cameras did not prevent Roberto Duran's death, but with his alleged killers now behind bars, these eyes in the sky have given his family some measure of solace.
"They are wrong," Roberto's father said of those who oppose the use of surveillance. "Cameras helped a lot in this case."