posted
I've posted before about my concerns about the government's increasing ability (due both to technology and to legislation) to monitor our private lives. Nobody I know seems to get as worked up as I do about this. I mean, plenty of people believe the Patriot Act is a bad idea, but at heart, still seem to believe in the eternal benevolence of the US government.
Anyway, I was reading around earlier and came across a couple of articles I found interesting, more or less on this topic.
It's interesting to me that some pretty big cities are just now getting into public surveillance cameras. Here in Central Florida, they are the norm, and have been for about the last four years.
Some concerns discussed in this article:
quote: What concerns Ofer, Rosen and others is what they say is a lack of regulation concerning surveillance cameras, and their great potential for abuse, both by overzealous police and by those who might turn surveillance into voyeurism.
They say the notion that the only people who have anything to fear from increased surveillance are criminals or political activists [is] mistaken.
Another British study, done at Hull University, found that one in 10 surveillance cameras was at one time or another used to follow women for voyeuristic ends, and in New York City, a surveillance tape from a public housing project that recorded a black man committing suicide was posted on a racist Web site, allegedly by one of the police officers who was supposed to be monitoring the cameras.
Ofer said that one CCTV camera he noticed earlier this fall on top of a building in midtown Manhattan that may have been intended for some kind of security purpose appeared to be being used for another goal. At various times when he returned to monitor the camera — which he said was very high tech, able to swivel in all directions and outfitted with a powerful zoom lens — was pointing directly at windows in the hotel and apartment buildings across the street.
Videos of unsuspecting people — women changing in store dressing rooms, couples fighting or having sex — that were caught by the British surveillance cameras have wound up for sale on the Internet.
When it comes to use by police, there are problems because as technology has advanced, regulations on the use of that technology have not kept pace, Ofer said. While police must get a warrant to carry out audio surveillance — requiring that they show probable cause for why the target of their investigation should come under the closer scrutiny — there are no such requirements for video surveillance.
"We are a country based on limiting the powers of government and allowing government to engage in any kind of intrusiveness only if it can justify that intrusiveness," Ofer said. "The question is whether that level of intrusiveness is justified by a legitimate aim. That question hasn't even been asked yet."
The lack of regulation and rapidly advancing technology concerns Rosen as well, because he said that it could create an erosion of the meaning of "reasonable expectation of privacy," the legal standard used to determine what is and what is not intrusive.
After reading this piece, I stumbled across this column by Leonard Pitts that was relevant, I think, and that echoed many of my concerns:
I think that most Americans do not give serious credence to the possiblity that their government might cease to be benevolent, and as a result, are blasé about our government's intrusions upon our rights. Most citizens see the immediate threats of crime and terrorism as more credible and more frightening than the relatively unlikely fear of the United States turning into anything like a police state. Their answer to any concerns about the increased ability technology offers our government, or private corporations, to spy on us is, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why are you worried about it?"
I find the prevalence of this attitude sobering, as it was more or less discredited when it came to low-tech search and seizures and other violations of due process.
Terrorism and crime are immediate concerns, but they can be fought without threatening our liberty. The loss of our liberty may seem far-fetched, but I believe it is not. I don't think any powerful body is inherently good or moral. The only thing that has kept us free is our insistence as a people that our freedoms not be violated without due process. (Which more or less echoes what Ofer said in the first quotation above.)
I think I'm more aware of this (or more paranoid and deluded, I guess, depending on your point of view) because of my family's flight from a government that turned oppressive. The very first public speech Castro made after his rise to power was a call for people to trade in their weapons, which were, after all, no longer necessary after the result of the revolution, for farm implements.
I love the United States. I think it's a great place to live, and I love the ideals that spawned it. But no, I do not trust our government to voluntarily excercise restraint with the powers we give it. I think it's our job to continue to create America by being vigilant in ensuring that it lives up to its ideals, and by limiting the amount of power we give our government as much as we realistically can.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as we have people monitoring these cameras --- which is unavoidable -- you will have some people who abuse this monitoring power and use it for bad purposes.
Just because there are a lot of bad or at least dishonest or unscrupulous people out there.
I don't see a way around that fact.
And it isn't all government. I know of many unscrupulous security-camera practices at the business/security level.
Farmgirl
(hey - I posted in your thread -- now will you PLEASE teach me how to make those musical note symbols in the forum?)
They're in your Character Map utility if you have a PC (which corresponds to Key Caps if you have a Mac). I cheat, though. I open Micro$oft Word, and go to Insert --> Symbol (which I have set up as a shortcut button so I don't have to look for it) and click on it there.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I agree completely. What should we do about it? I am very concerned about the loss of liberties with the Patriot Act and in general. Nobody I know who is a member of a minority, for instance, feels confident that the governmental powers will act benevolently toward them. They have too much history of abuse. In fact, historically governments of all nations and times have abused all powers they are given. That's why we have a constitution, and that's why we have checks and balances. All governments constantly push the envelope on stuff like this.
So how do we work to prevent this happening? I love America way too much to let it become something else (something unamerican) without a fight.
quote: So how do we work to prevent this happening?
The easy answer is throw the rascals out.
The hard answer is that you must be willing to live with a certain amount of crime in order to be secure in your freedom.
Most people, given the choice between a nebulous freedom that they practically never use, and the all too easilly imagined images of various crime will choose security.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The hard answer is that you must be willing to live with a certain amount of crime in order to be secure in your freedom.
Most people, given the choice between a nebulous freedom that they practically never use, and the all too easilly imagined images of various crime will choose security.
I agree with you, but I think that's a shame. It comes from a misplaced sense of security.
Anne Kate, I dunno. I tried Johnny Lee's first solution, but was unsuccessful. If I call my venting "speaking out" can I claim I'm doing something about it?
I find it ever more tempting to join the ACLU, except that there are some particular positions of theirs I find impossible to support, and I don't feel comfortable about my money going to causes associated with those positions.
I really like that project that allows New Yorkers to plot paths through the city that avoid surveillance cameras. That seems like a good kind of civil resistance. However, on a practical level, I think the government can put up cameras faster than that website can keep up.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad part is how quickly the general public will accept them. It takes about half a generation - 10 years or so - until the public forgets they are there and just accepts them.
posted
Britain is a good case in point. I forget the exact statistics,but it's the most heavilly surveilled country on the planet, apparently.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, have you ever looked into the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A lot of their issues and cases hinge on civil liberties, too, and they get a lot less money than the much better known ACLU.
[ November 15, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not training cameras on our citizens who are not under suspicion for committing crimes?
Well, I was just pointing out that it isn't just the government with this philosophy. Yes, we have some control over the government. But do you know how many cameras survey you each day that have nothing to do with government?
Geez -- I work for a bank. I pass six cameras on the way to my desk. Many more if I go down to the lobby teller line.
What I'm meaning to say is that there probably isn't going to be any backward-pedaling in this movement. Even if government was to stop survelliance of everyone, there are lots of others still watching.
Farmgirl (p.s. - thanks. I didn't realize regular character map symbols would work inside a UBB code forum)
posted
Just wanted to say that I'm not one of those people who believes their government is good. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. That's why I just refuse to leave the house. I know someone is always watching me, so I just don't go out. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The sad part is how quickly the general public will accept them. It takes about half a generation - 10 years or so - until the public forgets they are there and just accepts them
Social Security Numbers come to mind. I'm too young to remember personally, but the 'rents swear they were originally just for tax purposes. Now we use them for everything.
The part that really bothers me is working in the bank knowing how awful identity theft can be and remembering how often I was asked for my SSN for college apps and standardized tests. How dare they do that to kids too young to know better.
-AR, the Intermittent
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, have you read Brin's thoughts on the subject in his book The Transparent Society? I haven't actually read the book yet, although I've read a number of his essays on the general subject. He has an interesting perspective on the future of privacy.
posted
My school uses our SSNs as our ID numbers. That means in an average week I'll give out my SSN at least 3 times on our daily quizes in pysch. That's not counting other, random, things that we have to give it out for. The thing is, there's no real way around it. I don't put it on the quizes, I don't get attendence credit. I don't give it out at other times and depending on the situation the result can be annoying to devestating.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolve: Protest protest protest. Get your classmates to protest. They can issue different ID numbers and use them just as easily, and in an age of identity theft there is no excuse for not doing so. My company just switched from using SSNs to using a randomly generated ID number for all our benefits stuff, mostly due to complaints.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are "in the proccess of phasing them out" this year because of protests. As far as I can tell this means that 99% of the time you use your SSN except for the 1% of the time you need your Student ID # and don't have your school ID that has the number on it. Of course, you have to ask everytime they ask for a number, just in case you get caught in one of those times when they need the other number. GRR.
I think a huge problem is the new school ID numbers have 10 digits and all of our scantrons just give 9 digits for the ID number. Why they couldn't have just given everyone 9 digit ID numbers is beyond me.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, again, this is why it is good to be me. When we were buying this monstrosity, my brother (and banker) ran a credit check on me. My credit rating is 0. He said, "Basically, we know you exist and have a social security number." See, I've always said I wanted either really bad credit, (so no one in their right mind would want to steal my identity) or have no credit rating. I think I've done it rather well, so far.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If I call my venting "speaking out" can I claim I'm doing something about it?![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
