Gun cameras
This is the perfect example of using technology to make the public sector more transparent - and given the one-to-one nature of the public sector performance in this area to the civil servant - direct accountability measures are possible. Me likey this one.
3 comments:
Sorry, I can't agree on this one. There are already too many cameras. We seem to be relying on surveillance to protect us way too much. Whether its from terrorists or cops, the idea that the solution resides in less privacy and more scrutiny is becoming way too ingrained for comfort. While its true that this particular measure is aimed only at monitoring the interactions of public servants in the execution of their public duties, the technology represented here will not stop with keeping an eye on the cops. It will be turned on us in ever increasing waves.
First, it will be about protecting the children. It's always about the children first. Someone will come up with the bright idea that we really should keep on eye on those that are charged with keeping our children while they are at daycare. Don't want any perverts or emotionally unstable people there.
Then it will be the priests monitored while they are in the company of altar boys.
Then will come the scoutmasters.
Then it will be the grade school teachers, junior high teachers, guidance counselors, you name it.
Eventually, those in these positions will themselves insist on being monitored, for that is the only way that they can prove their innocence.
As these things happen, the number of crucial jobs requiring monitoring will increase and the range of acceptable behaviors in any situation will progressively narrow and we will all find that we are constantly on our best behavior to restrain our eccentricities and to act natural in front of the tens of thousands of all-seeing eyes tracking our every motion.
Public money spent on the proliferation of ever smaller cameras is not something that should be embraced with undiluted enthusiasm.
Yes, I agree with your concern, and there is a slippery slope here. I am not in love with the idea of cameras everywhere, in fact it makes shivers go up my spine. What I do prefer is the idea of cameras on the activity of government rather than on the activity of private citizens. I think that there is a huge difference between the two.
The question is 1) where to draw the line and 2) if it becomes possible to draw that line in a reasonable way given the political climate - and as you suggest with the increasing proliferations of cameras to "protect" us - that might be more and more difficult.
But - where police point their guns? I'm ok with shining a little light on that. CCTV cameras everywhere? Less happy. Wiretapping without warrants? Less happy.
You are right though - I think there is something is fundamentally lost when we lose trust completely.
The best way to allow monitoring without letting it get out of hand is to keep the government out of it all together. Here I'm going to be a bit of a Friedmanite.
Two years ago when I wanted to take a picture of something, I had to think about it before hand and go to the trouble of bringing my bulky film camera with me. Now I have a cell with a digital camera and a digital camera with video modes with me at all times. As this sort of technology proliferates, the abuse of power becomes more difficult (indeed I think the Rodney King episode was a real turning point here). Let the market take care of it. Soon, anyplace that there are people, there will be cameras and that will serve this surveillance function.
The problem is when the cameras are placed and controlled by the government. When the government has access to all the footage it wants instantly without having to win the support of the citizens on EVERY account that it needs such footage. Sure such a system is far from perfect, but it is also free of the problems of the surveillance society.
We are becoming FAR too used to allowing intrusions into our privacy for the sake of security and/or convenience.
GPS locators are an optional feature for cell phones in Japan now. They were put there, predictably, so that parents could know where their children were.
Now the Defense Ministry is considering requiring all of its personnel to carry the same sorts of phones at all times because of some improprieties in business dealings. They want to keep track of their personnel so they know they are not being wined and dined by defense contractors. Ahh, we are keeping an eye on our officials. Isn't that great? Increased transparency! There is virtually no tradition of privacy or personal rights here and it won't be long before companies begin to require the same of their employees.
Japan, of course, is not America, but the same sorts of dynamics that I have seen here for years are beginning to be all too commonplace in the States.
The greatest danger to freedom comes not from an all-powerful monolithic government (though that danger is real). The greatest danger comes from the decay of the idea of liberty. It comes from people seeking security in conformity and being uneasy in the presence of noncomformity, in the presence of any eccentricity that is not socially sanctioned as entertainment.
Liberty is threatened most not by tyranny but by comfort and security. The road to despotism is not a hard one. It is easy, reassuring and warm.
Any money put into development of miniature surveillance is money that will eventually rob us of far more liberty than it nets us in security.
I draw the line on government investment in any camera that is not fixed in place in the public areas of government buildings. I'll grant you that few others will be so conservative in where they draw the line, but I will also wager you that that is exactly why the line will never be effectively drawn and in ten years if not sooner,surveillance will be as much a part of our everyday lives as cell phones or wireless internet, and everyone will simply accept it. Perhaps I am being oversensitive here, but I think that if we don't draw the line now, it will never be drawn.
Post a Comment