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
