Surveillance and How It Impacts the Public At Large - Case Study Example

INTRODUCTION This paper is about Surveillance and how it impacts the public at large. Whenever we speak of surveillance, we think of mental images of “they” watching “us” and “them” having a database where all the information about us is stored. The terms of them and us refer to the law enforcement authorities and the civil society at large. The concept of someone watching us all the time is inbuilt into our selves and deeply embedded in our mind. The ever present CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) camera and the ever present wiretap are examples of how the state snoops on its citizens. In this paper, I examine the implications of surveillance on the urban communities with particular reference to New York City. As the topic of the assignment states, “in New York city, the city government is considering an increase in the use of cameras with the goal of decreasing crime. Explore the impact of public surveillance on crime in New York and other large cities, with consideration of the key issues of privacy versus safety”. Hence, the issue that needs to be discussed is whether increased surveillance decreases crime and the costs of the increased surveillance on issues related to privacy. I take the position that though some amount of surveillance is good from the point of view of controlling crime; nonetheless, the adverse effects of increased surveillance on the rights of the individual have to be considered. Hence, I argue that we need to take a middle path between increasing surveillance and respecting the privacy of the individuals. The point here is we should obtain a balance between the legitimate needs of the state and that of citizen privacy and rights need to be maintained. SURVEILLANCE IN RECENT TIMES Surveillance in some form or the other has existed for a long time. It was common for the Kings and Princes in England to snoop on their subjects using human spies and informers who would dutifully report on the activities of the people of their kingdoms. However, the Enlightenment era saw the thinkers and the intellectuals of the movement coming out against this kind of surveillance. Likewise, the modern world has had its share of critics of the attempts by the state to keep the citizens under a constant fear of being snooped upon. Thinkers and writers such as George Orwell who wrote the classic book on totalitarian surveillance 1984, was correct about the dangers of too much surveillance on the society at large. However, the attempts of modern day governments like the city of New York to impose methods of surveillance have gone on largely unchallenged due to a combination of factors. These range from sensitive concerns of 9/11 regarding the activities of terrorists and the threat of crime and criminals wreaking havoc on civil society. As the reading by Haque points out, “The PATRIOT Act of 2001 has introduced significant legislative changes impacting the role of information technology (IT) in government. Although most changes have directly affected law enforcement agencies by giving them increased surveillance and investigative powers, more generally, the increased security environment has transformed ways in which public managers collect, disseminate, and evaluate information for decision making. What was initially spurred by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has now fundamentally changed how IT can be used in security and surveillance. Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Tom Ridge termed the war on terrorism as the “war of information and intelligence.” Because of immediate threat and limited resources, government policy has been focused toward centralization of federal authority in security of the information infrastructure. These reforms are shown in the establishment of individual executive entities such as the National Intelligence Authority (NIA) and the DHS.” (Haque 23) These methods have increased the amount of surveillance that the individual experiences as part of the state’s exercise in fighting threats to the society in the form of criminals or terrorists. As the readings referenced for this paper show, what became an exercise in getting rid of terror attacks has now become a method to fight crime and anyone suspected of having bad intentions towards the state. The other aspect of this increased surveillance is that in times of economic depression, the state is more likely to keep a watch on those civilians it considers hostile to the security of the state. SURVEILLANCE AND CRIME This paper seeks to address the question whether increased surveillance leads to decreased crime. In this section, I look at the justifications provided by the state for increasing surveillance as a method of battling crime. Further, the fact that technology has improved in its ability to snoop upon the lives of the citizens is also discussed. The main point of this section is to examine the reason that the state advances as an excuse for increasing surveillance as well as the tools that the state employs for the same. As the following excerpt from the reading by O’Brien shows, “Prior to the onset of the information revolution, a panoply of physical surveillance accompanied by some data surveillance techniques were widely employed; these included ‘traditional’ modes of physical surveillance – such as the interception and opening of letters, scrutinizing relevant documents, and once the relevant technologies had sufficiently developed, the application of a range of aural surveillance techniques to private telephone lines to hear what was being said in a particular location.” (O’Brien 27) What this means is the forms of surveillance that existed prior to the onset of the information age were a bit primitive and as he later says, “The considerable developments in technology over the last 30 years, however, have greatly expanded the possibility of an increased level of existing types of surveillance, as well as the instigation of different types of surveillance, including the harnessing of technology to combat crime, employing new methods to augment existing physical surveillance and also adding a portfolio of data surveillance tactics.” (O’Brien 33) The excerpts from the reading show that the present sophistication in terms of surveillance is perhaps unrivalled in the history of mankind and the reasons for the extent of the surveillance to this degree shows that the state has become paranoid about terror and crime. There is a need for the state to remain vigilant and this aspect is not disputed. However, the effect of this on the incidence of crime is something that we would have to consider given the canvas that is being sought to be snooped upon. The fact that increased surveillance leads to decreased crime is based on empirical evidence and the fact that these methods are being touted as proactive measures are made clear by the following passage from Weigler’s article: “We are trying to make security a proactive thing, so that instead of simply reacting to incidents, we’ll anticipate events even before they happen,” he says. Camera footage seems to be holding up in court. Baltimore PD, for example, has seen a 40 per cent decrease in crime since installation of their cameras in 2005.” (Weigler 24) What the preceding paragraphs have made clear is that there is definitely a correlation between increased surveillance and decreased crime. Hence, the aspect of surveillance can be justified on these grounds. Further, the incidence of increased ownership of guns by the members of the public after the economic crisis erupted definitely calls for proactive action from the state. However, as the next section and the section after that show, there has to be moderation and one has to draw the line somewhere for the citizens to preserve a modicum of privacy in their personal lives that are otherwise infringed upon. SURVEILLANCE AND PRIVACY Many commentators have remarked upon the power of technology to increase the amount of control that the state has on the individual. As the topic of this paper is about use of public surveillance methods, it is useful to consider what one expert on this topic has to say. “One of the many consequences of the near-ubiquity of information technology in modern-day society is the potential now afforded for the surveillance of individuals and the storage and dissemination of such information about a huge number of the – often seemingly unremarkable – day-to-day activities that we undertake.” (O’Brien 31) As we have seen surveillance, by definition, infringes upon the privacy of the individual. The intrusive cameras at public places, the compilation of the information related to purchases made at stores and while shopping online and the measures introduced in the wake of 9/11 have all contributed to the erosion of privacy for individuals. Some of the measures introduced in the wake of 9/11 like the provisions of the PATRIOT act that allow law enforcement officials to browse the records of individuals accessing books and journals in libraries are things that would make any citizen apprehensive about the kind of control that the state has on the individual. As Weigler puts it in her article, “All of this is a challenge to the US Constitution, according to those who lean on the Fourth Amendment as a buttress guaranteeing a right to privacy. Law enforcement officials would argue that cameras are put in public places, where individuals cannot reasonably expect privacy. Yet, as surveillance continues and the use of digital images – including such seemingly innocuous ones as mobile phone snapshots –proliferates, the public debate and legal wrangling rage on.” (Weigler 26) As was argued in the earlier sections, though some of the measures that have been put in place would appear to be unconstitutional, nonetheless, the public at large has acquiesced to the increased surveillance due to the factors that have been cited in the studies done on impact of surveillance on modern society. Surveillance in any form is debasing to the individual and only the exigencies of the situation would warrant the individual to tolerate this infringement on his or her privacy. In concluding this section, the point to be noted here is that any form of surveillance is an attack on personal liberty and personal freedom and can only be justified by recourse to the situational demands and the bigger picture of fighting crime or terrorism. While the section on surveillance and crime has shown the linkage between the attempts of the state to fight terror or crime and the empirical results from the same, this section highlights the need for moderation when it comes to snooping on the people. LIMITS TO SURVEILLANCE In my opinion, surveillance is a form of control and something that exercises power over the individual. The omnipresent video camera is a manifestation of the objects of state control and its power over the citizenry. Though the ostensible reason for surveillance is fighting crime, as the author points out, it is also a means of exercising control over the citizens and ensuring that the subjects of the surveillance are not far from the gaze. The issue of surveillance has become more pronounced after the 911 attacks. The state apparatus justifies the increased surveillance on the grounds that public safety is paramount and hence some loss of privacy is justified. However, what the account of increased surveillance does as a matter of increasing safety or making people more insecure is something that needs to be examined closely. In this context, the article under review lays out the framework for debate but leaves the reader to make his or her own conclusions regarding this topic. An excerpt from the article states, “One reason for the popularity of video-surveillance in contemporary cities is its ease and presumed effectiveness. Compared to patrolling by foot, video-surveillance makes it possible to oversee larger spaces with the same amount of personnel and, therefore, new surveillance technologies are usually greatly appreciated, for example, by the police” (Koskela and Tuominen 70). The point that is being made here is that surveillance by video cameras is cost effective and covers more area. Increasingly, the modern world is being fragmented badly. What this means is that people are getting into gated communities across the world as a means of ensuring safety and security. This trend is more evident in the urban world where affluent members of society can be seen retreating into the comfort of their communities that have round the clock surveillance and armed guards protecting them (Khanna 125). What these trends mean is that citizens no longer trust their own governments despite all the methods of surveillance and the affluent among them prefer to have their own methods to fight the menace. As I conclude this section, the main thoughts are about how the state might be unwittingly inviting the charge that it is prying upon people’s personal lives as an extension of state control and not out of any altruistic motive to prevent terror attacks or crime waves. CONCLUSION In the previous sections, we have seen how surveillance impedes on privacy in the guise of providing safety. An inherent danger in the current system of surveillance is the fact that the very methods of surveillance may well prove to be the tools for increasing the chances of crime. As the following excerpt from a commentator on the issue shows, “It is not just privacy that is at risk under the new regime, it is security as well. National security is much broader than simply enabling intelligence and law enforcement investigations. Although undertaken in the name of national security, building wiretapping into our telecommunications system may be a greater threat to that security than the spies and terrorists against whom it is aimed. The surveillance we are attempting to build may increase security in some ways, but it also creates serious risks in a network infrastructure that supports all of society.” (Landau 15) It is my firm belief that surveillance has emerged as a response to a legitimate threat perception by the state and was initially welcomed by the people. However, the increased use of state power and gaze has left us with a sense of feeling powerless in the face of the all mighty state accompanied by the gaze. The omnipresent and omniscient CCTV may represent the almighty power of the state as well as a rude interruption by the state apparatus in the everyday lives of citizens. In conclusion, I reiterate the main point that I have been making throughout this paper and that which I buttressed with excerpts from the readings and my inferences: The use of methods of surveillance may be justified to a certain extent as legitimate measures to tackle a specific problem. However, one has to draw the line somewhere if the methods of surveillance do not end up as Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and take on a beastly life of their own and in the end, defeating the very purpose of the endeavour. The gaze might be omniscient but once the umbrella of the network becomes omnipotent, the results would certainly be hard to predict or control. Works Cited Haque, Akhlaque. “Information Technology and Surveillance: Implications for Public Administration in a New World Order”. Social Science Computer Review. 2005; 23; 480 Khanna, Parag. The Second World: Empires and Influences in the new global order. New York: Doubleday Publishing, 2007. Koskela, H. and Tuominen, M. “Night-city – the city of fear? The night of Helsinki. Helsinki: The City of Helsinki”. Information Management Centre, 1995. 66–89. Landau, Susan and Diffie, Whitefield. “Communications Surveillance: Privacy and Security at Risk”. Communications of the ACM. (November 2009). Vol 52: No. 11. O’Brien, Mark. “Law, privacy and information technology: A sleepwalk through the surveillance society?” Information and Communications Technology Law. Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2008, 25–35 Weigler, Laurie. “Big Brother in the Big Apple”. Engineering and Technology. (May – June 2008): 24-27. Read More