March 26, 2005

Ruined Day Off

If anyone knows how to ruin my day off, it would be the Tennessean, but luckily, even though I'm out of town, I still have an internet connection.

The Tennessean, in all of its infinite wisdom has endorsed the Metro Police Department's plan to install cameras so they can monitor you and listen to your conversations as you walk down the street.

Let's take a look at some of the things that they say:

The decision has raised concerns about privacy. But the cameras, if used as explained by the department, should be no invasion of privacy. They will record public activity in public places.

I think I touched on this topic here. Many of the places that have police have employed the use of cameras (both traffic and street cameras) have started using them for more than they were originally intended to. When a government entity (especially law enforcement) have this type of tool at their disposal, they will more than likely end up abusing it and using it for things outside of its original, stated intent.

Further, the department is practically announcing the presence of the camera locations, complete with postings of logos and blue lights at the camera spots. Citizens should expect that anything they do in a public setting is open for anyone, including the police, to see.

Oh yes...announce that they are there. That should make us feel much better. I believe that they did the same thing in Oceania. Signs were everywhere saying "Big Brother is Watching You."

Additionally, citizens shouldn't expect to be under the ever present eye of the police. This is America.

When a citizen walks into a bank, a convenience store, an airport, and many government buildings and private companies, he is recorded by surveillance cameras. The equipment is there for security. Cameras designed to capture outdoor public settings have the same purpose.

Walking down the street is not the same as being in a privately owned building, an airport, or a governmental building. Plus, just because cameras are everywhere else, doesn't make it any better.

If anything, law enforcement officials should avail themselves more of technology. If a person disputes an assertion by police, having recorded material will serve to back up the citizen or prove him wrong. The photography should be a reliable source for everyone.

Why did Memphis stopped using cameras? Why hasn't the article mentioned that? Maybe it had something to do with reliability of the system?

Anytime the police say they will use surveillance, it is reason to demand openness and fairness in their approach. The practice should not be abused. But if the intent is to deter crime and enhance security for the public, the cameras are a prudent approach. Surveillance cameras in public places can be friends, not foes.

Deter crime? Like in Great Britain? Doesn't look like it's working over there any even though they are pretty much the most watched nation in the world.

It would have been nice for the Tennessean to have done a little research on this issue. They provide no research data or anecdotal evidence to back up the claims that cameras are able to reduce crime. They also haven't provided any information to show that such technology won't be abused. Instead, they sound almost like the Metro Council replies I have gotten.

I would like to expound on this even more, but like I said, I'm out of town and on dial-up...gotta love that.

Thanks to Bill Hobbs for the heads up on this as well.

To catch up on the posts on this issue for the past couple of weeks, go to the Big Brother category.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.