By: Jacqueline Galeno-Escobedo
A major theme in the readings and class discussions is surveillance. A proper definition given by Gilliom and Monahan in their book SuperVision, is that surveillance is the monitoring of people in order to regulate or govern their behavior. From our discussions we came to see that surveillance is indeed a big part of our lives. Our cell phones, credit cards, social networking accounts, etc. are all capable of tracking and displaying very personal information that can be used in many ways. It is obvious that technology has become more advanced in our already modern world. What has not been thoroughly discussed though, is how technology has become increasingly sophisticated in the area of law enforcement surveillance. This leads people to question where their information is being displayed, for how long, and whether they are being targeted based on their identities, which may lead people to resent and distrust the police.
A recent article by the Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spotlighted the police department of Lansing, Michigan. The ACLU executed reports on surveillance cameras used by the police in residential neighborhoods. What they found was that the technology being used was extremely advanced. The residents are subject to constant monitoring twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week. Not only that but the cameras are able to display images in high-definition, and are not limited by darkness since they are also equipped with night vision technology. This makes it possible for police to read a paper in someone's hand up to fifty feet away. It is also possible to recognize a face that is as far as four-hundred feet or a license plate that is three-hundred feet away. The length of time for which the information is retained is left to the discretion of the police. The minimum limit is about two weeks. With such advanced technology one can expect residents to feel discomfort and wonder if there are any restrictions on what can and cannot be monitored. These limitations are explained next.
The LPD ( Lansing Police Department) has designated "privacy zones" which should not be recorded. These include the windows of homes and other "non-public areas;" but as one can see this name is not very descriptive of what places are truly restricted. Even though window areas are banned from recording, the police are still capable of seeing what types of packages the residents receive, who visits them, what services they subscribe to (ex: they notice a Comcast repair man parked in front of a house), etc. Being under constant surveillance can lead residents to wonder where their information is sent out to and for how long it remains there. It can also lead them to question whether they are being targeted because they are part of a minority group.
An independent researcher's findings demonstrated that African-American residents were indeed to be "..twice as likely to be under camera surveillance as white residents;" black residents were aware of this. The LPD's advanced surveillance can anger anyone, but when people know they are specifically being targeted, resentment and distrust grows.
This reminds me of what we saw at Target with their constant 360 degree capability, high-res display, and multiple points of monitoring. It also reminds me of Target because, as we saw in their photography lineup, most of the people identified as "suspects" or people to watch for crime were African-American or Latino. This comparison goes to show another way that private and public policing entities incorporate the same tactics to watch over the people in their realm, often intentionally or unintentionally targeting certain demographics.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat surprised to see a municipal agency doing this and not experiencing a push back and resistance from the residents. Any indication of resistance in the article? Professor Musheno
ReplyDeleteInteresting article Jacqueline! Was there an event that occurred in Lansing, Michigan to spur the establishment of all this high-technological, pervasive surveillance? I also wonder if there was extreme backlash from the community. This reminds me of Carlson's presentation and how she talked about the racial profiling that occurred in Flint. -Marielle Bautista
ReplyDeleteI understand that police believe they are making it safer by monitoring everything in these neighborhoods but what then is privacy anymore? If my neighborhood was monitored by police surveillance twenty four seven I would not be to happy. I would feel like my privacy was being disrupted. Yes, surveillance can be a good thing in order to stop crime and catch criminals but there must be limitations. Surveillance shouldn't have to come with taking away people's privacy, especially in their most private space.
ReplyDeleteThe increase in police surveillance using high definition technology making it possible to monitor people’s actions on a round the clock basis is a disturbing trend. This makes people dissent and trust the motives as the time extent of recording the surveillance is only known by the police. This reduces the ability of people to carry out their activities normally without fear of surveillance hence the privacy and individuality of the community is undermined in the course of policing. This surveillance depicts negative impacts of technological advancement on freedom, public space, and individuality.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
Wow, that is pretty extreme form of surveillance. Was there a reason that such measures were being taken in the residential area? Like maybe there was suspected criminal activity within the area, but they were not sure exactly where?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of the trust model that Captain Figueroa explained today and helps drive home its importance because this kind of activity would definitely reflect badly on their PD in terms of integrity. Like both speakers stressed, without any intelligence or help from people within the community, they would not get far in terms of getting to the core agents and issues surrounding criminal activity.
I am not to surprised to see that Law enforcement is stepping up their technology along with the rest of us. However I do feel that they are over stepping their boundaries. The idea of the house to me is that what happens in my house stays there. With this kind of surveillance law enforcement can have a full understanding of who and what goes into your house which to me is encroaching on our right privacy, and like most actions with law enforcement. I am not surprised at all that black households are targeted more this is a common with law enforcement, and to me, and they wonder why minorities don't trust them.
ReplyDeleteAs we saw yesterday with the Oakland Police department, police has to step up the allocation of money for technology based tools to make their jobs easier and also safer. I am not sure that we should rely upon technology as much as we do though because nothing beats good old police work and sometimes going back to basics is what might work best.
ReplyDeleteAn increase in the amount of surveillance only further increases the distrust that residents will have with police. Black people know they're being targeted, that information isn't new. At this rate there will be no legitimacy left for the police with the disconnect there is between the citizens and those who supposedly protect them. I understand the need for surveillance in certain situations. Yet I do not understand surveillance used at the expense of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteAs someone stated above I am wondering what triggered this strategy and this type of seemingly over the top surveillance. It is also interesting to me that African Americans are twice as likely to be watched and that they are aware of this as this significantly threatens the legitimacy of the police. This type of extreme surveillance seems like it would lead to more resentment and backlash than good. This seems like too excessive to be successful.
ReplyDeleteTayler Davis
Thank you all for your comments. To answer your question,the article does not state what events, if any, brought about this extreme form of surveillance. It does though,note that the residents, particularly those that are African-American, as being angered by being surveillanced to such a degree. One resident stated that he wonders what the person(s) behind the cameras are thinking when they see his African-American grandson playing basketball in the front yard. Privacy is really becoming hard to maintain. The residents' stoops and fenced backyards were also monitered until the ACLU recommeneded that they ceased. As Gilliom mentioned, privacy is more like the idea to be left alone.
ReplyDeleteJacqueline Galeno-Escobedo
Constant monitoring in a neighborhood by police is wrong and a violation of people's rights. Advanced technology in law enforcement is a good thing but the technology discussed in the article is too intrusive.
ReplyDeleteThese article is definitely pushing demonstrating that surveillance in the police system is pushing the limits of privacy. Though they are not technically able to see inside people's homes, the fact that they are able to see the outside of a private residence, I believe, is an infringement on a citizen's right to privacy.
ReplyDelete-Eric Walbridge
As technology advances, these type of extremely sophisticated surveillance tools should also be taken into account in citizen's mind in order to protect their own privacy. Connecting the idea from the class, observing that the already disadvantaged and suppressed minorities being a target was not a surprise personally for me. My concern is, where are the internal polices that regulates these behaviors? Surveillance may have its reasons for certain safely, but it shouldn't violate privacy to the point of uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteJackie Ji Park