May 12, 2005

Surveillance Cameras (pt 129)

Fellow Kentucky Colonel and CARR graduate Doug Petch weighs in on the surveillance camera debate by pointing to Max Borders' latest Tech Central Station article.

Borders writes:

The Big Brother story is powerful in a number of ways. It has taught us about the dangers of giving government too much power to meddle in our lives -- especially in our personal affairs and on our private property. Government cameras in people's homes and businesses would be a civil rights violation of the highest order. But using surveillance technology as a means of keeping our streets safer and cleaner (hopefully in a more cost effective way) is a win-win to my mind. Cameras on public streets do not amount to a slippery slope towards 1984. Instead it's a twenty-first century method for keeping our public areas cleaner and more secure. Let's not let hyperbole get in the way of good policy.

1984 is indeed a powerful story, but what we didn't get with the story is everything leading up to Oceania. How did they start down the slope of becoming a completely watched society? I'm sure that people didn't have cameras in their private spaces from the very beginning. It had to start somewhere. While this is a fictional story, it was written as a warning. Orwell was telling us to safeguard what we have (liberty) in the present or we would slowly slip down into the world of 1984.

Britian's camera system started out small, but now they are installing microphones on lamposts outside of people's houses to listen for noise so that "Noise Control Officers" can be alerted. Of course, this is not even mentioning the fact that surveillance cameras haven't had much of an affect on deterring crime...yet they keep adding more surveillance tools to their inventory (even Chicago is now installing audio devices in unmarked cars to listen in on private conversations). The citizens there have apparently gotten used to it...the proverbial boiling a frog in water scenario (that I use so much) fits so well.

Borders continues:

Indeed, what is the difference between a cop sitting in his patrol car monitoring the streets (and you) whilst eating a Bavarian crème and that same cop sitting in a control room doing the same? You may respond that, in one instance, the cop is not visible to you. But there is nothing to say that cops can't monitor people while obscured by alleyway shadows. In fact, they do it all the time. Would anyone argue that this is a civil rights violation? The point is there is effectively no difference between eyeball surveillance and camera surveillance except a few wires and some distance.

First off, I don't eat Bavarian crème, but that's beside the point. I personally feel that having a cop in the vicinity is much better than having one in the control room stuffing down donuts (no offense to police officers out there). Why? If there is a cop there, he or she can intervene a lot faster than if there isn't one there, and if the cameras aren't deterring crime, then it would make a lot more sense. And, putting a sarcastic tone on it even further...just like anything, the more you take the police away from the street, the lazier they will get.

Oh, and another note on this...some people point to Chicago as an example of where cameras have worked. What they dont' tell you is that at the same time they installed cameras, they completely changed the way the department approached crime, the way they were dispatched to certain areas (using ICAM), and put a lot more cops out on the streets...hence crime went down.

Borders also alludes to the oft asked question, "why does it matter if you are being watched in a public place?" My response would be that we, as Americans, shouldn't expect to be under the ever present and watchful eye of the government. Part of being American is the fact that I can go down the street anonymously and not have to be watched every moment. Of course, we've pretty much lost that, but just because we've lost a lot of it doesn't mean we should continue down that road (and private cameras are *not* government cameras...both are bad, but the latter can go a lot further in restricting liberty).

Petch concludes with the following:

I suppose that the best conclusion I can reach now is that it will be next to impossible to reverse the trend towards increased public uses of video surveillance. Given that assumption, extreme vigilance on the part of the public will be required to ensure that we don't in fact start down what would be an especially odious slippery slope...

But...I must ask...why even turn down that road?

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.

---Borders also alludes to the oft asked question, "why does it matter if you are being watched in a public place?" My response would be that we, as Americans, shouldn't expect to be under the ever present and watchful eye of the government.---

The scariest thing to me about this debate is how often I have heard people say with a straight face: "you don't have anything to worry about if you aren't doing anything wrong."

Posted by: Chris Wage at May 13, 2005 07:04 AM

Totally agree about the expectations of privacy in public. It seems like dirty pool on the part of government. Just because we have no specifically designated right doesn't mean the government has to be a prick and snoop anyways.

Posted by: Drake at May 13, 2005 08:33 AM

I suppose we could all start wearing wide-brimmed hats, sunglasses, and not talk at all while in public. *eyeroll*

This is a 1984ish situation, isn't it? It had to start somewhere. Those defending this in the name of safety and 'cleaner' environments haven't thought it all the way through. And how a camera makes me safer than a cop in a patrol car...A cop in a patrol car makes me nervous, and I'm about as innocent a citizen as one can get. But a camera? That makes me even more nervous.

Posted by: Miss O'Hara at May 13, 2005 11:59 AM

First the state takes away your right to bear arms. And then then Big Brother installs cameras. Scary, to say the least. Now the feds are starting this medical database BS. What is next? Before you know it, we will have some chip installed in our arms that tracks us everywhere we go.

Posted by: Glen Dean at May 13, 2005 06:38 PM

The government is getting out of control.

No answers, no taxes.

http://www.givemeliberty.org

Posted by: Doug Kenline at May 13, 2005 08:37 PM