By: Molly Ruiz
Many of the contexts in which we have discussed policing in general and surveillance in particular have raised negative concerns about misconduct and misuse of technology. The tragic bombing that took place on April 15th near the finish line of the Boston Marathon is an example of potentially positive applications of the surveillance architecture which our society has adopted for better or for worse.
As this disastrous and deeply saddening event has just taken place, there will hopefully be new information leading to potential suspects by the time this blog is posted, but the issue that I take up here is certainly relevant to our class. In searching for any possible lead, the FBI as of April 16th has "made a public appeal for any tips to help identify suspects." Specifically, efforts have been made to "scour the mass of photos and video already posted on Twitter, Facebook and other sites for clues. Authorities added their own call for help, hoping that in an era of ever-present smartphones, race fans might be holding evidence without even knowing it." Although we have talked in class about how general surveillance tactics such as closed circuit cameras do little to prevent crimes from happening, they can go a long way in aiding law enforcement's apprehension of the perpetrator, and this appeal for camera and video footage taken by marathon spectators makes use of thousands of witnesses who wouldn't otherwise be able to report seeing anything suspicious. In effect, smartphones themselves have become witnesses without carrying the burden of subjectivity and fallacy that the human brain does.
Utilizing information from cell phones in hopes of finding documentation of a bomber or any other suspicious activity puts to use the "volunteer army" (17) that Gilliom and Monihan describe in their opening chapter of SuperVision. In these two authors' account, not only are people inadvertently engaging in activities which are surveilled, but they are also purposely engaging in surveillance of their own. Often this participation involves taking mundane photographs of drunk friends, but as with all surveillance it can have unintended consequences which may be harmful or, in this case, potentially highly beneficial to a criminal investigation.
When I hear about surveillance, I (like probably many others in this class) have an immediately negative reaction that leads me to think about my rights, my desire to control personal information, etc. I tend to forget that the surveillant capacities of small devices such as cell phones can turn everyday citizens into valuable informants who may unknowingly hold clues to an investigation. Most likely, the FBI in this particular case will be able to apprehend the perpetrator(s) of this horrific bombing without relying extensively on pictures and video footage taken by marathon-spectators-turned-victims-turned-witnesses, but even if such data turns out to be entirely irrelevant, it serves as an effective reminder that surveillance has become part of our social architecture precisely for the reason that it is instrumental to the expansion of human capacity - for good as well as for bad.
The FBI has now released images of two suspects of the Boston bombing and is making public appeals to identify and gather information on these individuals. Technological advances have further enabled interaction with the public and its involvement in such investigations to aid law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteChristina A. Henriquez
Molly,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking up this current event!
I believe your observations about the usage of information provided by the "volunteer army" are spot on, however, I am not so sure about the infallibility of this information that you mention.
As in the case of Reddit, I think that crowd-sourcing is closely tied to hasty judgements, and can result in further confusion, unnecessary involvement of innocent people and the reinforcement of bigoted images.
Especially with regard to "terrorist attacks" the denunciation of certain groups of people is all too common, and I am guessing that the information by the people must be fairly skewed into a this direction.
Even information gained by the F.B.I. about the 2 suspects through social media etc. and its portrayal by mainstream media might not be depicting a truthful image. For example, the NYT announced today that the two suspects are of Chechen origin and have strong ties to this country (as found on their YouTube history). However, they then say that the suspects have lived for most of their lives in Kazakhstan, which incidentally does not have the same involvement with terrorist organizations as Chechnya does. I think the creation of this image that origin has something to do with your actions and behavior results from a self-fulfilling prophecy. People want the suspects to come from a country closely tied to a country of great terrorist activity because then they can make sense of the world and feel safer.
I don't know anything about the suspects' true lives, but how would it impact our views if the media would portray them as having lived in Kazakhstan for most of their lives but then turning to the resources of Chechnya once planning their attack? All I am saying is that there seems to be a tendency to create a narrative that fits the idea that terrorism is tied to the origin of the perpetrator.
Btw, to tie your blog back to my own about human mapping, I'd like to mention that Chechnya is/was on the list of "ancestries of interest" whereas Kazakhstan isn't. So, I am arguing that one can use even information that looks infallible in order to create a narrative that fits the people's expectation that only certain groups are tied to terrorist attacks.
Sorry for the long comment and for getting off track a bit.
Your blog is very well written and I enjoyed reading it.
Michaela -
DeleteI definitely agree with you about the infallibility and dangers of imposing identities on people that can result from populist engagements in policing. Much has been made of the fact that these two brothers were Muslim and deeply religious which, had they belonged to any other religion, probably would be regarded as irrelevant.
Thank you for your response!
-Molly
The article admits that "surveillance has become part of our social architecture" which means there is no escaping, turning back to reverse the reality, or denying the fact. The question should not be about whether surveillance violates privacy. It should be whether the benefits outweigh the costs. From what could be deduced about how investigators solved the Boston bombing case, surveillance was a big help.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
I agree that surveillance has become part of our social architecture. I also see the benefit surveillance has to investigations such as the one mentioned above. One concern I have is to what extent should we be surveyed? Should corporations like insurance companies dig through our personal information, such as pictures on facebook, and dictate what rates we should pay without any solid base for assumptions? Should potential employers look at some of our pictures instead of focusing on our resume and achievements to decide whether to hire us?
ReplyDelete-Yevgeniy Rokhin
These are questions with far-reaching consequences, yet the entities who have access to or compile personal information could care less about the rightfulness of using this data to draw conclusions about the subjects under surveillance. Thus, to the extent possible, an individual should exercise sound judgment in discerning what information he/she will voluntarily share in a public forum, recognizing that whatever is shared could end up affecting his/her social and economic opportunities, for better or worse.
ReplyDelete-Anton Kienast
Molly:
ReplyDeleteYour blog is well written and an interesting read. When I first heard about the bombings and how the authorities were turning to the public for help – I too thought of how technology was going to play out in this situation. If you followed the story since you wrote this blog, you would know that surveillance did help in the investigation and ultimately lead authorities to the suspects’ locations throughout the manhunt. Here we see an example of how surveillance cameras, smart phone capabilities, and help from the public can assist law enforcement in a positive way.
-Maria T. Perez
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. It's true that surveillance (inadvertent in this case) does play a very valuable role in aiding law enforcement catch criminals. In the case of the Boston Marathon Bombings in particular, people's personal videos played a large role in helping a virtual mob identify those responsible and subsequently lead to their capture. Unfortunately, there is also a very dangerous aspect that comes from what amounts to an internet-wide man-hunt. Two particular individuals were incorrectly identified and the error was greatly exacerbated by the masses who spread the news without sufficient proof. Really,tThe only thing more frightening than police poring over surveillance to identify criminals, is the general population taking it upon themselves to do the same thing (minus the training and resources). So there are good and bad things about it. Citizens rallying together and willingly compiling potential evidence is great and all, but things become more difficult when individuals take it upon themselves to play detective. Especially with the effectiveness of social media, sensationalist claims too often tend to spread like wildfire.
ReplyDelete- Donald Chan
I think the boston marathon case is a perfect example of the efficacy of an information society, as far as apprehending suspects. If not for the rapid spread of images of these two suspects, as well as constant updates on their presumed whereabouts, these two suspects would never have been found so quickly. The man whose car was stolen would never have been able to identify these two men as potential suspects, while the woman who saw red liquid dripping from her neighbor's boat potentially would not have otherwise called the police. Furthermore, the pure generation and exchange of data, photos and videos is what led to the second brother's decision to hide in the first place. If not for fear of being recognized, he could have easily fled the Boston area.
ReplyDelete-Michael B
Not only does our surveillance society have beneficial effects in terms of criminal investigations, but it also does a great job in keeping everyone linked into the world, and allowing for quick responses by the community in the event of an attack such as the Boston Marathon bombing. Within hours, just about anyone in the U.S. knew what happened, and many of us even saw video footage of the attack, as well as a streamline of photographs that illustrate better than words the tragedy. By raising public awareness in these events, we can all come together in times of need, and utilize that strength to quickly find suspects/criminals behind the case. In some cases, surveillance can catch the wrong people, but if we don't only rely on surveillance, and use multiple sources of clues/facts to solve an investigation, then we can really see the benefits of being intertwined in a surveillance society. By staying on top of technology, and utilizing it correctly, we can now swiftly and accurately close a case and punish wrongdoers. That's a great thing.
ReplyDeleteI think your post was very interesting especially because it relates surveillance to a real life event, so we are able to analyze it from different sides. I do agree with you that my first reaction to surveillance is a bad one since I associate it with spying or an invasion or privacy, but in this case, it is good because it solves the problem of the mind's tendency to blur or confuse memories - especially after such a traumatic event. As discussed in class, eye witness accounts can be very unreliable and before we became such a information society, they were relied on more heavily. But now with all the people who took videos, there are accounts that can be verified visibly. When used correctly, technology can be very useful, but we need to be careful as the line is a very fine one.
ReplyDelete- Aya
I was surprised to see such high quality images of the surveillance cameras available to the public. Because of this technology, the netizens of reddit and other social community sites took on the role of police themselves to investigate in the name of justice. Tragic events like these remind us of the useful side of surveillance, instead of the negative aspects.
ReplyDeleteJackie Ji Park
I think that you are right and the Boston Marathon bombing is a perfect example of how surveillance can help investigators solve crimes after the fact. I also agree that when someone says surveillance that I automatically have a negative reaction. But, I do not have a problem with this kind of surveillance because the FBI asked for it on a volunteer basis rather than hacking into people's Facebook accounts to get the information. Also, as we have seen this was highly effective in giving the FBI suspects.
ReplyDelete-Katie Wellman
After spending most of this semester discussing the negative aspects of surveillance, this event really made us realize that surveillance can be very important for apprehending individuals after commuting these horrific crimes. It is important to note however, that the use of surveillance did not stop this event from happening.
ReplyDelete-Yunus
Thank you Molly for your post! I really like how you connected the article to Gilliom's SuperVision. The day of the bombing I remember seeing a flood of images on my instagram news feed showing possible suspects; one of which was on a roof with a bag. It's amazing how much technology can aid in the apprehension of a horrendous criminal like the one who planted the bombs. It reminds me of how high tech Target is and how they use thair tools to track not only shoplifters, but murderers.
ReplyDeleteIt was cool to see how average civilians can play a police role because of the high quality images they were able to see things clearer. THus allowing them to do justice for the community. I like this article because it shows the positive side of surveillance rather than the usual negative side.
ReplyDelete-Derek Campbell
Your mention of people acting as a volunteer army is a good point. This is one of the reasons why the men behind the bombings were caught so fast. This was a well written article.
ReplyDeleteIt's one thing to have surveillance/take photos/video of the bombers, it's another thing to analyze it. The fact that hundreds of photos were submitted from people at the marathon but police missed a few of the photos that included the face of the bomber just goes to show that analyzing data is difficult, no matter how much you have.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Ghazz.
I agree that in cases like this it easy to remember why surveillance exists. It is incredibly useful in situations like this, and obviously easy for people to forget about their frustrations with privacy violations in order to get on board with this. This article does a great job showing how we are all a part of surveillance whether we realize it or not, and while we don't always choose to contribute and use it, when we do, it can bring about such a positive effect.
ReplyDelete