Scared of surveillance?
I'm a nut for the Fourth Amendment and I think privacy is an important right that can't be taken lightly. So it's from this basis that I'm inspired to comment on the growing level of general video surveillance by US governments, locally and nationally.
Europeans have installed millions of surveillance cameras they call CCD, a name derived from ‘charge-coupled device’, the actual electronic retina of a video camera.
The US is playing catch-up in major metropolitan areas, implementing their own camera programs. It’s all in the name of security, but some wonder if Uncle Sam is becoming Big Brother and challenging our rights to privacy.
In assessing whether government surveillance of ordinary citizens in public view goes too far, we have to analyze whether citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any give area or circumstance. The constitution provides for the right to privacy, but that doesn’t apply in open areas where you or your personal affects are on display for public viewing, or in plain sight.
The technology is fascinating.
State-of-the-art surveillance units
If you believe that bad things happen in the dark, that a fully transparent government would be a good thing, then 360ยบ full motion video surveillance cameras equipped with bio-chemical sensors, gunshot detectors and infrared & laser imaging have the ability to lift the vale of secrecy, which is only somewhat incompatible with crime -- but a significant deterrent.
But to prevent the abuse of this technology, we have to be watching the watchers too. That has to be a critical element in any blanket surveillance program.
Painting a picture of a crime scene
Imagine three such surveillance units setup in a town square where a theft has occurred. This gives me three camera angles of every square inch of that space, in which the x-y coordinates of every object are stored every 30th of a second. This creates a photo-perfect SecondLife-like virtual space that can be monitored, not only in real time, but generates a recording of the events, in movie-like form, that can be carefully analyzed to get to the actual facts of even the most minor infractions. Having such an accurate record not only identifies the theif, but provides documented proof of innocence for the rest of us.
Also imagine, as a police officer, you type a license plate number or name into the computer system and the system can then begin searching for recent records in its recognition results. It can also monitor in real time and alert the cop if a camera spots the subject in question. Incredibly useful stuff! (But easy to abuse!)
While you’re walking along a sidewalk, you’re out in public view. Anyone that cares to glance can see you. Passersby can possibly hear what you might be saying for the brief moments they’re within hearing range. Knowing this, people generally tend to behave themselves.
There’s no difference between this scenario and the one in which surveillance units are placed. You’re provided no more or less privacy in these public spaces – until a crime is committed. When that happens, the public has a pretty solid record from which to gather evidence to identify the crime, the victim and the perpetrator.
If the aim of surveillance is limited to those elements, and public interest is key with respect to the use and management of the surveillance program, then big brother objections are muted.
On the downside, these kinds of high-tech surveillance eyes and ears can and will be abused. For instance, images of the insides of people’s homes will be captured and recorded. Privileged conversations will be made public. The private lives of citizens will undoubtedly be exposed to a greater extent. There is no question that privacy at times will be compromised as a direct result of general surveillance programs.
The public will want to take greater care in guarding their privacy. The public will also take steps to safeguard surveillance records and prevent abuse.
All in all, general high-tech surveillance programs will keep everyone a little more honest. On balance, I see it as good thing.
And remember that while we, members of the general public, are being watched more carefully, so are public officials. If there's balance like this, and the demarcation between public and private is vigorously guarded, I have very few concerns about pervasive video surveillance in public spaces.
Europeans have installed millions of surveillance cameras they call CCD, a name derived from ‘charge-coupled device’, the actual electronic retina of a video camera.
The US is playing catch-up in major metropolitan areas, implementing their own camera programs. It’s all in the name of security, but some wonder if Uncle Sam is becoming Big Brother and challenging our rights to privacy.
In assessing whether government surveillance of ordinary citizens in public view goes too far, we have to analyze whether citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in any give area or circumstance. The constitution provides for the right to privacy, but that doesn’t apply in open areas where you or your personal affects are on display for public viewing, or in plain sight.
The technology is fascinating.
State-of-the-art surveillance units
If you believe that bad things happen in the dark, that a fully transparent government would be a good thing, then 360ยบ full motion video surveillance cameras equipped with bio-chemical sensors, gunshot detectors and infrared & laser imaging have the ability to lift the vale of secrecy, which is only somewhat incompatible with crime -- but a significant deterrent.
But to prevent the abuse of this technology, we have to be watching the watchers too. That has to be a critical element in any blanket surveillance program.
Painting a picture of a crime scene
Imagine three such surveillance units setup in a town square where a theft has occurred. This gives me three camera angles of every square inch of that space, in which the x-y coordinates of every object are stored every 30th of a second. This creates a photo-perfect SecondLife-like virtual space that can be monitored, not only in real time, but generates a recording of the events, in movie-like form, that can be carefully analyzed to get to the actual facts of even the most minor infractions. Having such an accurate record not only identifies the theif, but provides documented proof of innocence for the rest of us.
Also imagine, as a police officer, you type a license plate number or name into the computer system and the system can then begin searching for recent records in its recognition results. It can also monitor in real time and alert the cop if a camera spots the subject in question. Incredibly useful stuff! (But easy to abuse!)
While you’re walking along a sidewalk, you’re out in public view. Anyone that cares to glance can see you. Passersby can possibly hear what you might be saying for the brief moments they’re within hearing range. Knowing this, people generally tend to behave themselves.
There’s no difference between this scenario and the one in which surveillance units are placed. You’re provided no more or less privacy in these public spaces – until a crime is committed. When that happens, the public has a pretty solid record from which to gather evidence to identify the crime, the victim and the perpetrator.
If the aim of surveillance is limited to those elements, and public interest is key with respect to the use and management of the surveillance program, then big brother objections are muted.
On the downside, these kinds of high-tech surveillance eyes and ears can and will be abused. For instance, images of the insides of people’s homes will be captured and recorded. Privileged conversations will be made public. The private lives of citizens will undoubtedly be exposed to a greater extent. There is no question that privacy at times will be compromised as a direct result of general surveillance programs.
The public will want to take greater care in guarding their privacy. The public will also take steps to safeguard surveillance records and prevent abuse.
All in all, general high-tech surveillance programs will keep everyone a little more honest. On balance, I see it as good thing.
And remember that while we, members of the general public, are being watched more carefully, so are public officials. If there's balance like this, and the demarcation between public and private is vigorously guarded, I have very few concerns about pervasive video surveillance in public spaces.
