NewsLanc logo

NewsLanc newsfeed via Atom
Subscribe to NewsLanc's newsfeed
Google

WWW Newslanc

Surveillance Cameras - Good For Whom?

Does watching everyone, everywhere all the time with cameras deter crime, or at least reveal it before criminals can escalate or escape?

Obviously. There's absolutely no argument that could say otherwise.

But, does that inherently make it the right thing to do?

Is blanket surveillance of the population, in a free society, the right way to fight crime? Is it fair and constitutional to the law-abiding citizen that they be monitored and recorded every moment that they are going about their business? Is a ratcheted-up Nanny State, acting as baby-sitter, a valid solution to problems whose real roots lie in socio-economic, educational and cultural disparities that remain un-addressed and thus, unchanged?

Or, are we simply abrogating our personal responsibility as citizens to collectively shoulder the burden of maintaining a civil society?

It seems to me that most people are disinclined to honestly examine this question. It's uncomfortable. It reeks of civics, which few understand any longer and subsequently resent in a vague, undefinable way. It implies that there might be something that each of us, as Citizens Of The Republic, might be failing at or even forgetting altogether. It warns us that the cameras might be a solution, but not necessarily to the problem we're thinking of.

And for those reasons the question absolutely must be asked by all of us, to ourselves and to our fellow citizens.

Is this the path we want to embark on? Do we really understand where it could possibly lead? Are we absolutely sure that we're willing to become disinherited of our rights, our personal freedom from intrusion, in exchange for being relieved of our responsibilities?

Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray's opinion is "If people know they are being watched, they are less likely to do things."

I doubt that many people read statements like this and consider the idea that "not doing things" applies not only to "wrong things" but also potentially to "right things" or even "ordinary things".

Criminal behavior on the street may become modified under surveillance, but non-criminal behavior is equally susceptible to modification. Self-censorship, if you will. You may think it sounds petty, or even beneficial if you're of the "Miss Manners" school of thought. But when you consider the idea that someone you don't know is watching you every moment you're in public, and you really have no idea what they think about whatever you're doing, you might just decide to be a little more careful, more generic, about what you do. Blend in and all.

Now, to take things a step further, let's examine some theoretical statements that could be taken as equally true as the Mayor's words:

"If people know they are being listened to, they are less likely to say things."

"If people know their mail is being read, they are less likely to write things."

"If people know their internet is monitored, they are less likely to read things."

These statements might sound preposterous, if they weren't already in the new-speak lexicon of National Security. They might apply to you right now, you just aren't permitted to know it.

National Security is important. But I know a slew of people who are very uncomfortable with some things the Federal Government believes it can and should do in the name of "keeping us safer" from people who "hate freedom". And as we've seen, once the flow of "safety features" is let open it's near impossible to stem it, let alone turn it off.

Personal security is also important. But I know from history that whenever a government is allowed to intrude on people's right to privacy, for whatever reason, it has diminished the peoples' freedom and liberty.

Along with their responsibility, of course.

But do you really think that's a fair trade? And if it's not even technically The Government watching you, but instead other private citizens, where might that lead? If the person watching your every move is not even sworn to uphold the Constitution, but rather gauging the "rightness" of your actions according to their own measuring stick, where does that leave you?

Out in the cold, and on tape.

I made a "gesture of disapproval" towards a camera the other day, and then thought about the idea that in a slightly less free society, that simple expression could get me into a file labeled "Troublemakers". Then I thought about the idea that this camera might be monitored by some tight-butt Church Lady volunteer, whose notions of free expression don't exactly mesh with mine, and that I might just be in a file anyway. After all, who's watching the watchers?

Surveilling society might reduce street crime, but it's an artificial solution that puts your rights and your privacy in the same ash can right alongside criminal's. Placing this power in the hands of a private foundation only worsens things and widens the already gaping doorway to abuse. And don't kid yourselves - whenever abuse can happen it does happen, sooner or later.

And then, finally, there's our personal responsibility. Do you really want to give it up, take the easy path? Because that's where the cameras naturally lead. Where's the incentive to report a crime you've witnessed and possibly have to testify against a criminal in court if the cameras have it covered for you? Why bother keeping an eye on your neighbors' homes and cars if the cameras are already on the job? I mean, why would you even feel a speck of responsibility for anyone or anything around you, if it's all being monitored and recorded anyway? Something bad starts to happen, the cameras will send the cops. The cameras will testify. The cameras will convict. The cameras will shoulder our responsibilities as citizens so we can feel safer without any effort.

And the cameras will watch and record everything you do in public, and quite possibly anything you do near a window. But you won't have to do anything and, in fact, should probably refrain from doing anything, just to be on the safe side.

Our responsibility to each other and to society in general is one of the foundations of the American nation. If we surrender those responsibilities to a camera and a faceless watcher, we will not only find ourselves less free, but ultimately less American, and probably not much safer.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety" – Benjamin Franklin

Links