Surveillance and Technology

By: Heidi Cheung

Today, we are constantly under surveillance. Reports about companies and employers wanting their employees’ login information to social media sites, stop and frisk, and public/private police misconduct further reaffirms Gilliom and Monahan’s argument about our surveillance society. In lecture, surveillance was defined as a systematic and intrusive watching from a position of power, with the intent of channeling and governing human thoughts, actions, and behaviors. The reality is, surveillance is built into our social architecture and there is virtually no way to escape it. Recent news includes police drones, which further supports the idea of a rapidly increasing surveillance society/police state through new technology.

Used for years in military war zones like Afghanistan, the Federal Avian Administration has recently expressed interest in testing these “unmanned drones” in several civilian places in Seattle. Since last year, Seattle has obtained U.S. Permits for police departments who want to try them out. A guest lecturer mentioned that citizens feel the need to carry guns when they feel the police force isn’t doing enough to protect them. Especially recently, when gun use is getting out of hand, the government is constantly looking for ways to reduce crime. This is one way to combat crimes because the police evidently can’t bring down crime to a sufficiently low level.  Also, while the President is pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, our country fears another terrorist attack. 21 states are considering bills to regulate the use of drones in civilian life, in large part to combat terrorism. Technology of these drones moves faster than public policy debates, therefore, implementation of these drones in our future seems promising.  

An NPR article describes the debate about drones. Professor Musheno said some of our main concerns about surveillance in the 21^st century are about eroding democratic participation and public accountability and our values. In addition, legitimacy of our government needs to be preserved. Drones pose a scary thought to the public, as our daily lives would be constantly watched. This is invasive to our privacy and freedom – important values to our country. Last month, the mayor in Olympia shot down the use of drones. Now, the issue has moved to the capital. Privacy activist Sam Bellomio points out that we’re not in a war zone, we shouldn’t be at war against our citizens. Drones supporters say that initiating state rules will ensure citizens that they’re not being personally watched, and surveillance will be deleted if nothing is out of the ordinary. However, limitation shouldn’t be too strict either - technology isn’t fully completed yet, and they don’t want to limit the use and efficiency of potentially successful crime deterrents. The federal government is planning to pay for these drones. (The two drones purchased by Seattle last year were financed by the Department of Homeland Security.) This article also brings up other concerns in society like license plate scanners and facial recognition software. 

G&M summarize our privacy debates concisely in one sentence: “by and large the ‘right to privacy’ is not well enforced.” (G&M 6) Everything we use has become capable of monitoring us. We carry around cell phones, credit cards, computers, walk in and out of private property, etc. Simply cell phones are equipped with all the technology necessary to track us down quickly and easily.

Four days ago, NBC wrote about surveillance cameras becoming increasingly popular. The meteor that struck in Russia was recorded through the use of dashboard cameras, a popular commodity in Russia. People buy these cameras for similar reasons to why we buy home surveillance cameras – to feel security. This is an example to how we choose to be under surveillance.

In conclusion, while many new technologies are invasive and eroding our values, we can rethink how we choose to give up our privacy and freedom, too.