Smile, We're All On Candid Camera
Ross Clark's book, The Road to Big Brother, One Man's Struggle Against the Surveillance Society, involves Clark's experience in avoiding CCTV cameras and surveillance efforts in England. PrivacyDigest's review of the book, states (in part):
Ross Clark lays bare the astonishing amount of personal data which is hoarded by the state and by commercial organizations, and asks whom should we fear most: the government agencies who are spying on us - or the criminals who seem to prosper in the swirling fog of excessive data-collection.
As a city councilor, I was surprised to see surveillance cameras recently installed on new sets of local traffic lights. I wondered, "Who decides where these go and who will have access? Why are they there?" "Why didn't I have to approve these?"
I realize there's a practical argument for the potential advantages, such as recording accident data, raising compliance with safe driving laws, and, of course, avoiding traffic. In fact, the Connecticut Department of Transportation site lets you view traffic camera images that are updated every five minutes. The Boston SmarTraveler site offers several views, too.
But are things like Google Earth, government surveillance, and private webcams streaming on the web taking us into unchartered territories? I was excited to use Google Earth to see where my wife lived in Spain or others' travels. I've been on guided tours from the comfort of our home and they were fun experiences. But is there a trade off for fun?
Where is all of this surveillance stuff going and what societal costs are associated with it. Are we, as people with privacy rights and elected representatives, having a say in this, or is it something that is just evolving on its own? Who benefits and who loses if we do nothing but react, or worse, don't react?
I'll admit my bias, I don't think the simple retort, "If you haven't done anything wrong, then you don't have anything to worry about" can apply when criminals begin using technology or online tools to watch you and your property and to aid them in committing crime. While not a surveillance issue (but an online one), I recently read a report that the incidence of rape in a community had increased by double-digit percentage-points allegedly due to online dating encounters. Might always-on surveillance issues be creating similar problems too, whether it's stalking or, I fear, worse. But crime is not my only objection to this development. On a theoretical level, do people still have the right to be left alone?
Doesn't constant tracking of people and their private lives reach beyond our reasonable expectations of privacy. Of course, should you actively place something into the public realm, that is one thing. I don't expect privacy on my blog posts, tweets on twitter, LinkedIn discussions, or Facebook postings; but should we expect some privacy in our comings and goings?
I discussed this in a NY case involving GPS surveillance of one's car. One of the arguments presented was, why not let the police use warrantless GPS when all it does it track what they could track themselves? But what if the GPS (now usually not allowed in NY) is no longer needed because anyone can be tracked almost anywhere at anytime, without GPS? While the movie, A Scanner Darkly, is a bit out there, does it touch on something that's not so far out there? I believe the movie takes place in a future "seven years from now" or something like that--an interesting choice.
While it's fun to visit the New England Aquarium from my computer and see a live stream of the giant ocean tank, do the people going by Boston University's Marsh Plaza realize they are being recorded and streamed live? What about the people living near a camera where the camera is interactive and users can zoom in and move the camera around to get a better look? Would you like to be a unknowing neighbor there? Seeing this in action (no, I won't post this link) makes me have second thoughts about having a skylight in the bathroom, at minimum.
In the Future of Reputation, Daniel Solove, writes,
Today data is gathered about us at every turn. Surveillance cameras are sprouting up everywhere. There are twenty-four-hour surveillance cameras in public linked to websites for anybody to view.
Solove points to EarthCam as an example, but many others exist. See this MA example on Earthcam or Opentopia to see other Massachusetts webcam offerings. Will we all soon work in workplaces (like this one) where your workspace seems to be streamed all day long (warning this one can make you dizzy on several fronts)? What about your home? Besides neighbors with streaming webcams, I've also noted accounts of others using streaming video to monitor telecommuters to ensure they are working.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of technology and innovation. I think emerging and developing advances hold great promise on many fronts, especially in this information age. Innovation may make our lives more informed, perhaps easier, and arguably better. However, if individuals' rights are to be respected, law and policy discussions need to be occurring, not with just an eye toward today, but with an eye toward the future as well. As we've seen, the information age isn't slowing, and, yet, it appears the policy debates are already behind or being sidestepped by interested groups. Seven years from now, who knows... For now, however, remember to smile, because, to be candid, you're probably already on camera.
