Public Surveillance in the Future of America. Good or Bad?

Sava · February 4, 2003, 19:29

The topic of surveillance of Iraqi's in the US got me thinking. Would massive public surveillance be a bad thing. Let's weigh the pro's and con's. Please add to mine and give your opinion.

Pro's
Since witnesses can lie, evidence can be tampered with, the only real objective and honest witness is the video camera. A network of real-time camera's spread throughout public areas would no doubt give law enforcement and the justice system a valuable tool in prosecuting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Privacy people would be against this, but if you're in public, I think that you forfeit any right to not be watched.

I think all law enforcement should be broadcasting and recording in real-time. This would not only help in law enforcement, but it would also help protect victims of police corruption and brutality. I think it would also help in the training of law enforcement officials because it would be possible to review and analyze mistakes.

This technology could be eventually linked with facial recognition software in order to track suspicious persons, help urban planning by recording trends in traffic (pedestrian and vehicular), help in finding missing persons, and help in the apprehension of fugitives.

Overall, I think that a system of massive public surveillance would ultimately improve the accuracy of the justice system and increase public safety. The key thing to remember is that this is public surveillance... not private.

Con's
Although I don't agree with it, it's important to point out that many people are uncomfortable with public surveillance because of privacy concerns. But I think this is a no-brainer. If you are in public, there is a general understanding that you are visible to others. What difference does a camera make?

There is a potential for abuse. This could be a slippery-slope to big-brother type of surveillance and other types of technologies that would keep all people under the watch of the government. And certainly a system like this could be abused. But if it were to be created, it would be important to clearly define what's legal, what's not, and to put the agency(s) in charge under a blanket of accountability.

Costs involved. In order to put out enough cameras to effectively watch all major public areas would require a tremendous cost. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. It no doubt would provide a lot of jobs in the production, maintenance, and operation of such a system. But who's going to foot the bill. Ultimately, it would have to be funded by the government. It would only be possible if the electronics were manufactured at an exceptionally low cost. Without hiring kids in Southeast Asia, the most economically viable way to do this would be to have the government fund non-profit operations. Quality will suffer for quantity. Or if a private firm can do it, then they should get the contract. The best way to manufacture such equipment would be to have a high degree of automation. But I don't think that the technology exists today to do this. Cost will eventually determine this program's real world application.

Sava's Opinion
If it can be done, I say do it.

I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere in this post, so please correct me instead of telling me how wrong I am, mkay? And please, give your opinions, but don't start flame wars. Just list pro's and con's, them tell us whether you think it should be done or not.

November Adam · February 4, 2003, 19:32

I'm for public surveliance. As you said, if your in the public you are going to be viewed, whether it is by people or cameras, there is no difference, in my mind.

Dis · February 4, 2003, 19:34

as a semi-libertarian (I do realize that a complete libertarian way of life is impossible) I have to disagree obviously.

November Adam · February 4, 2003, 19:37

I personaly am willing to give up certain "privacies" for increased "security".

Dis · February 4, 2003, 19:45

There was a study in England that their video cameras really didn't curb petty crime and vandalism. They found that good lighting was far more effective in this regard.

November Adam · February 4, 2003, 19:47

I really don't like eye witnesses reports though. They are terribly inaccurate and the mind tends to make things up when it is under stress.

Sava · February 4, 2003, 19:53

Diss: But your libertarian views aside, don't you think that correcting the injustice in the American justice system and lowering crime rates far outweighs any so-called personal freedoms to privacy? Certainly, this would mainly apply to heavily populated urban areas and high traffic regions.

Dis · February 4, 2003, 20:33

I'm not sure if the technology is there just yet. Most camera footage I have seen looks like crap. In a well lit 7-11 convenience store it looks OK. But outside in the elements? I'm not so sure.

I would say put them in high crime areas. But those tend to be minority neighborhoods and you know that would never fly.

Lefty Scaevola · February 4, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I would say put them in high crime areas.

We arleady have 24/7 CSPAN in the congress.

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 21:25

The problem is, IMO, that it does little more than "move" crime around.

If it's going to work, then the only way it'll work is to put cameras everywhere.

If not, then the criminals (who have a vested interest in knowing where the camera are, and will take pains to discover this), will simply commit their crimes where the cameras are not.

True, this will have the impact of protecting storefronts and the like, but unless you're prepared for cameras on every street, in every neighborhood, and in every alley, the crime will simply shift its location.

A crack addict is concerned about his next fix. To that end, he'll steal.

If it means a bit more research to find out where the cameras are not, he'll do it, and continue to steal.

It adds an extra step to the process, unless it's global, and if it is to be global, then it's an intolerable invasion of privacy, in addition to being extremely expensive.

I'm against.

-=Vel=-

Velociryx · February 4, 2003, 21:26

Lefty!

-=Vel=-

Ming · February 4, 2003, 21:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
We arleady have 24/7 CSPAN in the congress.

You beat me to it...

Imran Siddiqui · February 4, 2003, 21:29

Con... do you know the cost of cameras everywhere? And people going through the tapes? That doesn't even count the privacy issues.

Sava · February 4, 2003, 23:11

Imran: I'm sure it would be better to use digital recording technology. Anyways, Britain has a system that is highly automated. But I agree, the cost is extremely high and might be the only limiting factor.

David Floyd · February 4, 2003, 23:22

Obviously opposed.

Sava · February 4, 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Obviously opposed.

yes we know