Britain is increasing the number of loudspeaker equipped closed circuit television cameras, the object being to permit surveillance staff to "talk directly to anyone observed behaving in an anti-social way." At present, according to the Reuters story, "Britain is the most watched country in the world, with an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 14 people."
I suspect that the majority of these millions of cameras are private security cameras at banks and shops and private residences. Even so, they are increasingly being used as well by government agencies both in Britain and the U.S., the latter so far deploying them largely at stop lights and, in my opinion, less for purposes of prevention than for revenue generation. My cynicism aside, though, it is difficult, frankly, to mount much of an objection to camera surveillance of public spaces, even against the loudspeaker equipped version, given that the proverbial cop on the beat of yesteryear was supposed to do precisely what these cameras are supposed to do now. In Britain's case, planned national identity cards and a database of information on individuals pose a much more obvious threat to personal freedom than some government flunky tut-tutting the on-camera miscreant over a loudspeaker.
As the stop light camera experience has shown so far, it isn't the mere use of cameras, per se, but the purpose to which information thus gathered is put. While, arguably, a proliferation of government cameras could cause legitimate and serious privacy and freedom of movement and assembly issues, it isn't so imminent or serious a threat at present, it seems to me, as the visceral reaction to the Big Brother icon evokes. That's not an argument for unchecked government surveillance; only an argument for some perspective in the matter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Governments like to make their populations legible. See what happened to the streets of Paris in the 19th century for an example.
As for the threats that cameras create if anything it is the "habits" that their constant presence ingrain in the citizenry. There is something of a slippery slope argument in there of course, but it does seem to be the case that when a generation grows up with X then Y (which may be an extension of X or a practice like X) seems less troublesome.
I certainly agree with your X than later Y comment. There is, I suppose, always the possibility that a citizenry aware of being constantly watched will become that much more careful and suspicious of the state, as well.
I certainly agree with your X than later Y comment. There is, I suppose, always the possibility that a citizenry aware of being constantly watched will become that much more careful and suspicious of the state, as well.
One of the things that Tocqueville talks about in his private correspondence regarding the nature of societies is is how "sentiments, opinions and morals" of a population effect the sorts of governments that they create. So, what does it say about the "sentiments, opinions and morals" of the U.S. that we're apparently alright with some measure of surveillance?
Post a Comment