Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Entering Dystopia, population 94,428*
I'm becoming a crank.
Yeah, yeah, I know, what do I mean "becoming?"
But seriously, I am starting to worry a bit. Why? Because I am having a probably unnecessary overreaction to a couple of bits of news here in my hometown. I think it'll become obvious what I mean, when I tell you what they are:
The city of Columbia has installed a cluster of four surveillance cameras at Ninth Street and Broadway as a demo for a larger project to monitor and deter downtown crime.
Watchtower Security is stationing security cameras on Broadway.
The cameras, which are suspended in the air on a post and resemble black fish eyes, were installed Monday by Watchtower Security, a St. Louis-based manager of surveillance equipment. Each camera has “pan, tilt and zoom” capability, allowing a viewer to read a license plate number or identify facial features from several hundred feet away.
* * *
Each of the camera groups is a fixed to a mobile pole that can be installed anywhere with a 110-volt outlet and moved as crime activity dictates. The cameras will all be placed downtown — the Special Business District contributed half of the $50,000 budget for the project — at intersections or alleys.
That was last month. Here's this month's:
City negotiates deal for camera use at red lights
Although negotiations on red-light cameras for Columbia have been stop-and-go for more than a year, city officials have given the green light for a contract with a new company, and test cameras could be up by July 1.
* * *
Another feature unique to Gatso was the “Amber Alert” camera setting. With the flick of a switch, St. Romaine said, the cameras can scan every license plate that passes through the intersection and look for matches if an abductor’s plate number is known.
“It’s not only for Amber Alerts, either,” St. Romaine said. It could be used “if there was a bank robbery and we could get the plate number. It’s a feature that’s not been out long. It was introduced in Chicago in the last four or five months. They would bring that added value to the system.”
I must admit, I agree with the comments of our local head of the ACLU, who last week said this about the Downtown cameras:
ACLU finds camera plan ‘creepy’
Where Columbia city leaders and some downtown businesses see added security and comfort in new surveillance cameras planned for downtown, others see government invasion of personal activities.
“It makes my skin crawl that we would just accept this so unquestioningly,” said attorney Dan Viets, president of the Mid-Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
* * *
“It boils down to safety,” police Capt. Zim Schwartze said. “We’re going to use every tool we can that the budget will allow. … It’s unfortunate that people think we’re trying to watch them just to watch them. You’d be amazed how many cameras are in the city right now in private businesses, out in the mall, bank, grocery stores. … People are being watched and have been watched for a long time.”
Ah, yes, "safety." Of course, that makes everything OK. Same excuse has been given for the red-light cameras. It'll stop people from running red lights, doncha know. And the ability for the "Amber Alert" feature, which will allow the cameras to scan *every* license plate that passes through the intersection? Well, that's to protect the children. We must do everything we can to protect the children, right?
And yes, there are lots of cameras in private businesses and at the mall, or in the parking lot at Sam's & WalMart. That bugs me enough as it is. But all of those are private property - not public streets. And they are not being monitored by government agencies.
See, right there - I'm becoming a crank. I'm becoming one of those guys who is a bit paranoid of his own government, even though I am friends with one of our city council members, and on good terms with at least two others. Even though my wife serves on an important city government board, and I'm involved in the city government at the neighborhood association level. Why am I becoming a crank?
Because I value my privacy. No, I don't have anything particular I wish to hide. My life is entirely too boring, and has been for a long long time. But while I am happy to comply with government requirements for paying taxes and getting licenses, making sure my car is inspected and properly insured, and obey driving laws to an absurd degree, I don't want my government, even at the local level, to be able to track my movements around town. I don't want to have myself monitored if I choose to go for a stroll downtown (which is now less likely - seriously, I *avoid* this crap when I can). Oh, sure, I'm a former downtown business owner, and a solid member of the community - a white, middle-aged guy who respects cops and is on a first name basis with the mayor. I'm not going to be hassled, and I won't be targeted for increased scrutiny.
But why should any law abiding citizen be subject to this invasion?
Jim Downey
*From the 2006 Census estimates. Title refers your choice of dystopian, authoritarian futures as outlined in countless books and movies. Cross posted to my blog.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
As The Pond Narrows
Columbia? Where the hell is that? Bloody England?
I'm really torn
I can only imagine what I'll hear after posting this, but...
I'm really torn on this issue. I get the privacy concerns, but I'm not sure this is really an invasion of privacy. Or not an unreasonable one. I'm not sure it's substantially different from having cops walking beats on every corner, except that it would be a lot more efficient and cost effective.
But I guess it's the efficiency that bothers some people, because the cameras, hooked up to computers, can do a lot more than even a substantial police force with a lot of communications equipment. And yes, that kind of technology can be abused, and pretty efficiently. But I also see how that technology could be very beneficial in 1) deterring crime and 2) catching perpetrators. People who would abuse that technology to do whatever they would do aren't likely to be thwarted because you took that technology away; they'd just look for what is available and use that.
My partner brought up a good point, though; maybe I'm just so desensitized to the issue because of CSI-type shows. Everywhere I go, I just assume some camera somewhere is recording my activities. In fact, in a way I feel safer because the cops are less likely to abuse their power if they are also under surveillance.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
There's a good discussion...
I decided this morning to go ahead and post this over at dKos, where there has been a good discussion on some of these aspects of the matter. One excerpt, a comment I made to similar objections:
And just because someone may find another way to abuse our privacy is no reason to give in on this sort of thing. Or to shrug, throw up our hands and say "well, it'll help keep crime down". Sure, a police state can be brutally efficient at keeping crime under control.
Oh, and Rob - turn off the TV. It is polluting your mind. ;)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
But I like TV!!
I certainly don't want my privacy abused anymore than you do. I guess the fundamental difference is that I don't know that having cameras in public is necessarily an abuse of privacy.
The comment you posted from the other site seems to still come down to the main objection is the efficiency built into the surveillance system. Calling back to my earlier example, and money issues aside, if instead of the cameras we could put a cop on every corner, 24 hours a day, would that be a better alternative?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
You know, a sign of addiction is being unable to stop.
Well . . . it'd be a *different* problem. Another manifestation of a police state, if you will. But at least we'd be dealing with a larger group of individual human actors, making human judgments, rather than an all-pervasive and very easily manipulated/massaged database.
Plus, I think the very ease and relative inexpensiveness of using surveillance camera makes them much more of a threat. Furthermore, they are almost invisible (and can be easily hidden), meaning that they can become all-pervasive without alarming the good citizens. To do the same thing with that many cops would require massive expenditures and be very high profile. Seriously, consider for yourself what your reaction would be to your scenario - and then reconsider just how dangerous doing the exact same thing via technology is.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
And admitting I have a problem is half the battle blah blah blah
Thanks, Jim, you've given me some things to think about. Our government, in some form or another, is charged with keeping us safe. Obviously that doesn't mean they have the right to take away essential liberties, nor use that as an excuse to abuse the tools they are given (whether it's guns, tasers, or cameras.) I just can't help but think that if we are going to take away all of the tools that could be abused, or even are abused (a nod to Hank's post below), at some point why bother?
I know there's a point somewhere, some line that shouldn't be crossed, in what we allow the government to do to "keep us safe", and for you that line falls somewhere short of surveillance cameras. Mine doesn't fall quite that short, and I'm not sure how much further it goes past that. And maybe I just say that because the encroachments have been slow enough to not alarm me as much as they do you.
Is there a line in the other direction, though? Any tools we give to the police that are effective can be abused, so where do we say it's worth the risk? The problems that Hank mention below with abuse not being punished are the same no matter what, and you're right that we shouldn't just shrug and let it go, but what do we do?
[whiny teen girl voice] This is, like, hard.[/whiny teen girl voice]
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Cameras, Cops and Mission Creep
I can give a 100-percent guarantee that the technology is already, somehow, somewhere, being misused. Not "will be" misused, but "is." Tasers are a case in point (actually, police power itself is a case in point).
Put this technology in the hands of, oh, Joseph Stalin and imagine what it would be used for, then recognize that Stalin wasn't an inhuman monster from another planet, he was a man, and there's a path to the place he got to that almost any other human can follow.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, for instance, would absolutely use it to hurt people, and he'd have a good time doing it, and in using it he'd become a WORSE, more abusive person. Hand the technology over to a Jerry Falwell, and you'd have people being outed for extra-marital affairs, or looking at Playboy at the corner newsstand, etc. Hand it over to a racist of 30 years ago, and you'd have public coverage of cross-racial dating (followed by private repercussions).
The real problem I have with this is one thing: There are NEVER NEVER NEVER any safeguards built into the use of it. Imagine that there was a criminal penalty for using a taser on an 80-year-old woman, or a 7-year-old girl, and the penalty was 20 years in prison with no parole. Do you think this would affect how cops used them? I think it would. But they get misused every day, in the most casual manner, and it's almost impossible even to censure the person doing it, much less fire him. They ARE used on 80-year-olds. They ARE used on children.
Do you think there will be any penalties for misuse of surveillance? Sure there will be, but they’ll be an order of magnitude different from the penalties meted out to any person on the other end of the surveillance. The people behind the cameras will be protected in ways that none of us will be – compare criminal conviction for you and I with private reprimand for Mr. Peeper. And he’ll always get the benefit of the doubt in court, including full official taxpayer-supplied defense, and the sympathy of his fellows, against any complainant.
Speaking of that, here's something that happened here: A cop actually called a major crack dealer on the phone, telling him federal agents were about to show up at his door and bust him, so he could dispose of evidence or flee. In this particular case, the cop actually was arrested and convicted, but he kept his job, on full pay, until his conviction, and every day of his trial, scores of other cops showed up, in full uniform, to demonstrate their support. As I recall, there was one day when there were upwards of 100 officers on the courthouse steps, all in uniform, all defensive and unfriendly, looking like a gang of blue-suited thugs. And of course the union supported him completely.
Who watches the watchers? Almost nobody, and it’s deliberate. In plenty of these cases, the local prosecutor won't even take the case. Someone from outside the jurisdiction has to prosecute it.
So the question isn't, "Is this an intrusion on your privacy?" It's "Are you willing to give up all rights to even the illusion of privacy?" Are you willing to allow yourself to be turned permanently into a puppy, constantly under the eye of the Big Dogs at the other end of the cameras? Because there’s a clear path to THAT, too, thanks to automated surveillance.
Country boy that I am, I've been known to step around a corner and take a piss (not in the city, of course, but in places not far removed). Yet I imagine that if you did that today where there was a camera with any sort of view at all of you, even if there was no human there to be offended, you could easily be arrested for indecent exposure, and forced to register as a sex offender the rest of your life. It might even be so dark no human COULD see you ... unless he was using light-amplifying (and telephoto; looked at Google Earth lately?) surveillance equipment.
Whereas a public official misusing a camera to spy on an ex-girlfriend, or to actually look into someone’s window at night, would get off with, at worst, a firing.
Finally, it seems to me that law enforcement and the “justice” system has been growing meaner by the decade. This increased surveillance comes accompanied by a whole extra helping of punitive possibilities. Bear in mind that there are laws on the books that could, right now, probably be used to accuse and convict you of a crime. Whatever you're doing, you're probably committing some kind of a crime, if someone chooses to prosecute it. Say your car is parked at the curb, and you're taking your dog with you for a ride – you allow him to scamper from your front door out to the car, where he jumps right in. It could be argued, and somewhere there's a public official who would, that you broke the leash law the instant your dog stepped onto the sidewalk. Instant $100 fine ... even though nobody and nothing was hurt. Cameras would guarantee a conviction.
Worse, put these cameras into an economic environment – the current one – where cities are desperate for income, and all the stuff that you “got away with” previously might now be in the government’s interest to notice, and levy fat fines.
In the end, I'm not bothered by being LOOKED AT, by any number of people (hell, I’ve been to public nude beaches, and clothing-optional hot springs).
But I am bothered at being WATCHED, especially by law enforcement.
Again:
If you’re not doing anything wrong, why should you be treated like the shitbags who are?
Yeah, but Hank . . .
. . . we already knew that you're a crank.
;)
Seriously, good comments.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Turning the Crank
Yeah, but I'm a crank who THINKS -- at length -- about the consequences of actions.
The children
Yeah right. So how many times has the system in Chicago thwarted an abduction? For that matter here in California the amber alerts go up on the CalTrans displays. I'd like to know if that has ever worked.
Maybe they should point the cameras skyward when there aren't any abductions so they can warn the locals when a meteor is incoming. It would probably have the same effectiveness.
Super Hero Vigilantes
I'm not normally in the habit of advocating armed insurrection like some Congresswomen I could name (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/congresswoman_urges_armed_rev...) but one has to wonder if Angle Grinder Man doesn't have the right idea.
He can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/3112670.stm
Seriously though Jim. You might want to have a look at these two links (and/or move to Mississippi):
http://www.privacylives.com/associated-press-jackson-stops-enforcement-w...
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
I remember Angle Grinder Man!
Thanks for that. And thanks for the links to the studies on effectiveness - I will add that to the post on my blog as well.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Short answer
No.
Cameras
I've thought about this for many years, and I finally hit on the perfect answer -- the REAL answer -- to the silly question "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry?"
The answer is another question: "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you be treated like the shitbags who are?"
Bingo.
Bingo.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.