Dallas is Watching You

The city of Dallas recently announced the instillation of cameras along a busy street in a popular part of the city. The cameras were heralded as "an added measure measure of security to residents and workers." A system of 11 cameras will monitor the area. Unlike many surveillance cameras, these cameras will be actively monitored by the Dallas Police Department. Naturally, police welcomed the new system, as did residents and merchants. There is not a crime problem in the area. The monitoring devices are simply intended to keep it that way.

It is not surprising that law enforcement welcomes any new device or technology that aids them in deterring crime and apprehending those who violate the law. After all, that is their job. Nor is it surprising that many seem willing to sacrifice their privacy for the peace of mind such monitoring offers to provide. There has been a growing, and for many, welcome trend in this direction for some time. As law enforcement technology improves, there is a demand to use that technology, not simply to apprehend criminals, but to deter them. The problem, as I see it, is that every one within the range of such surveillance is monitored. The innocent are watched as well as the suspicious. Because cameras cannot distinguish between the two, everyone is treated as a suspect and potential criminal. Being watched doesn't seem to bother people as much as it once did, but it should.

Technology is neutral. It can be employed by those with sinister intent as easily as by those with benign intent. There is no way of knowing what will be considered worthy of surveillance in the future. Nor is there anyway of knowing what technology will be available, what use will be made of that technology, or who will be using it. The prospect of a near omniscient state is not as far fetched as it once was. Some might shrug off such concerns by believing the people, the government, and the courts would prevent any such scenario from developing. Given the welcome such technology frequently receives from the public, clearly they cannot be relied upon as an effective deterrent. The enthusiasm displayed by government to employ surveillance technology is evidence that they are an unreliable defense of privacy and liberty. The security claimed needed by the state makes law less of an obstacle than it might have been in the past, particularly when laws can be changed. The courts have proved increasingly willing to acquiesce to the needs claimed necessary by the government to protect the people and the nation.

The question I have, and many should have, is what guarantee do we have that the monitoring technology we have, and will have in the future, will not be extended to ever larger segments of society and to ever more crimes deemed worthy of prevention through surveillance? If such technology proves effective in reducing crime in one neighborhood, why not use it to deter crime in the city at large? And if it is effective for a city, why not the country? A camera on every street and inside every building would go a long way towards reducing crime in this country; or a least towards identifying and apprehending suspects.

Threats come and go. They always have. Liberties and rights, once lost, tend to stay lost.