Are video cameras hostile to Liberty?

Raise your hand if you think security cameras in public places erode individual liberty.  The right to privacy, for example.

Now set aside the distinction between anonymity and privacy, which some Libertarians do, and consider the cases where cameras have helped catch bad people. And here we define bad people as extremely hostile to individual liberty (murderers, rapists, terrorists).

• Most recently, security cameras identified Faisal Shahzad, the would-be terrorist of Times Square in April 2010.
• The murder of Sandra Cantu in early 2009, now in the headlines because the alleged killer confessed, was partially solved using surveillance camera images of Sandra skipping to play at the killer's home.
• Joseph Smith would still be free but for a security camera which filmed him with a girl he murdered in February 2004: "Smith's friends and co-workers testified that he was the tattooed man pictured in a surveillance video from a car wash security camera who grabbed Carlie's wrist and led her away."

Survelliance has both an enforcement effect and a deterrent effect.  As for the erosion of privacy from this new technology, it exists only by conflating the defintion of privacy with that of anonymity.  And American society does not recognize a right to anonymity. Privacy in the public sphere strikes me as oxymoronic.

We can anticipate a rapid increase in public surveillance in the years ahead, and I think that's an almost unadulterated good.  Every time a reckless driver zooms past you on the highway, don't you wish he could be ticketed automatically?  Instead, we rely on random chance that a police vehicle will be hidden, identify the reckless driver, and pursue him/her successfully.  Wouldn't a better world identify every reckless driver and pacify the roads?  Remember, more Americans die every year from traffic accidents than died during the entire Vietnam war.

Comments

[Charles]

You don't touch on it in your piece, but when coupled with a free press and independent judiciary, surveillance is a powerful tool against a potentially oppressive state.

Just off the top of my head these spring to mind.
-- the UM student beaten by police a few weeks ago.
-- a soldier in Afghanistan caught hurling a puppy off a cliff.
-- a San Fransisco transit officer shooting a an unarmed suspect in the back.
-- a police officer tackling a bicyclists and falsifying an arrest report.
-- a Philadelphia narcotics squad caught robbing convenience stores( this won a Pulitzer prize).
-- the New York PD 81st precinct corruption scandal.
-- the Rodney King beating.

Even Watergate was partially based on surveillance.

[Chris]

"Most recently, security cameras identified Faisal Shahzad, the would-be terrorist of Times Square in April 2010."

You have your facts wrong here. Faisal Shahzad was identified through good old fashioned police work, using the VIN number of the vehicle. The red-shirted suspect initially identified from surveillance footage turned out to have nothing to do with the attack.

[Tim Kane]

Charles makes a great point, what I think of as the 1984 critique. Orwell's famous novel 1984 is predicated on state dominance of IT for popular control, but history seems to have unfolded with the opposite IT effect. This goes beyond cameras, and includes the printing press, the telegraph, the phone.

Chris, I may have my facts wrong, but it's too early to say conclusively. What's I've read says he was indeed identified by surveillance as well as other means. But the video was released to the public by the police, no? That tells me there was value in the video.

[Chris]

"But the video was released to the public by the police, no? That tells me there was value in the video."

How does releasing a grainy, unrecognizable video of someone who turns out to have no involvement in the attack have value? To me, it seems more like security theater: intended to provide the illusion of security, rather than actual security.

[Sluf]

More surveillance does not necessarily mean more people will be watching us. As with any new era, we must be careful what we ask for. In this case, insurance companies now have the ability to determine your speed and may begin writing contracts that address your default if caught speeding (without the random police officer seeing you).

Are your hands at the 10/2 position? If not, it is only a matter of time before a smart lawyer (not necessarily a joke) presents that argument in court.

Do you like to watch Youtube videos? What is those videos contained your image or actions for the world to see? Granted, we should all have thick skin and laugh at ourselves... but what about people watching your kids? How do you feel now?

I do not endorse breaking any law; in today's world, it seems that it is less about breaking the law and more about your risk to society in general (i.e states will have to begin reporting your child's BMI in the new House bill, which has everything to do with risk to the ever-increasing public health debt). Also, with the new capability comes the exploitation of that ability in the same way email revolutionized speedy communication to the point that we receive spam on several orders of magnitude to legitimate email.

Who funds all these cameras? but I digress...

Let's not just focus on the good that a new program promises and let's seriously address the risk involved with a new technology. We may enjoy the benefit of slower drivers who do not text message... but realize that you may not be able to get insurance some day because, in a fleeting moment, you were filmed 5mph over the speed limit.

JMO

[Terry]

Society requires autonomy in order to function. People schedule meetings with each other in public places in order to have private conversations. While a meeting may be in a public place, there is still a perception that privacy is available - ie no monitoring is occurring. What happens if we destroy that avenue of communication?

Unless the government is will to provide full access to all cameras regardless of location, more cameras will only benefit the government and it's excessive desire for secrecy. Why are only people outside of government subject to monitoring and punishment? Think about it. In many jurisdictions, the simple act of video taping a police officer is illegal. Every politician and government employee should be placed under 24x7 monitoring with public access to the film and sound before the general public has any additional monitoring requirements.

If 24x7 monitoring was installed in the White House and all Politician Residences and work places, how long would it take for these people to realize that monitoring is a terrible idea....

[Nursing pajamas]

interesting post! it exists only by conflating the defintion of privacy with that of anonymity.

[louis vuitton]

interesting post! it exists only by conflating the defintion of privacy with that of anonymit

[Chanel]

How does releasing a grainy, unrecognizable video of someone who turns out to have no involvement in the attack have value? To me, it seems more like security theater: intended to provide the illusion of security, rather than actual security.

[jong]

Who shall watch the watchers? Who will watch the watchers of the watchers?

[Junbug20]

Ben Franklin said; we will lose our liberties for the sake of safety and security it's not the exact quote word for word but I'm with him and yes therefore cameras are hostile, if you have property or a buisness, protect it with cameras, don't ask the government to do it, on your person have cameras and use them, children, watch them, know where your kids are at all times, atually it would be great if they a gps device if they lost or stolen since there your responsibility esp. when small I'm for that only. other than that Hell No!

[George Zraick]

I agree that having systems to help deter crime is great. But the comment about traffic bothers me. I live in an area where video systems are installed at lights and when a person breaks a traffic law the system catches it. What I do have a problem with is FOR Profit corporations selling these system to cash strapped cities under the guise of traffic control. This scam shares revenues with the company suppling these systems. Wake up folks!

[replica watches]

It is pretty certain that the Replica handbags you are looking for is a must-have handbag. Of course, who doesn't and not especially if it's one of the

[replica watches]

I hope that world poverty is eradicated completely. Is it ok to accept that in the future only only 1 billion people will be in poverty? should we be happy with that? sounds like 1 Billion people too many if you ask me!

[knightpro]

these people who thought that the security camera monitoring are a treat to their liberty and privacy are selfish people who are just thinking of themselves. Besides, what are you afraid of if you're not hiding anything? Unless you do any unlawful and cheated things don't be afraid. Aren't you glad that many crimes were solved through the help of these surveillance systems?

[New Balance 574]

You have inspired me to adapt this project for my high school level design class.

[jordans women shoes]

After the opening ceremony, athletes are into intense competition, and I silently blessed the school in the heart of this Games a success.

[chanel bags]

"In order that people may be happy in their work, these things are needed: they must be fit for it; they must not do much of it; and they must have a sense of success in it."

----------- by John Ruskin, British writer

[taobao buy]

Knowledge is important for us!

[Shox R5 Shoes]

, and consider the cases where cameras have helped catch bad people. And here we define

[Shox R5 Shoes]

anticipate a rapid increase in public surveillance in the years ahead, and I think that's an almost unadulterated good. Every time a reckless driver zooms past you on the highway, don't you wish he could be ticketed automatically? Instead, we rely on random chance that a police vehicle will be hidden, identify the reckless

[china wholesale store]

*Learn to live, and live to learn.