Response 7

Response to New York City Surveillance Project

Questions:

1. Why are citizens just now reacting to the surveillance after more than 2,000 cameras are already in place?
2. What are the cameras intended to accomplish and what are the drawbacks or obstacles preventing them from doing so?
3. What right do some citizens have to monitor others in public, unowned spaces without their consent and where will privacy boundaries be drawn? Where will it end?

Response to Question 3-

Unless an individual has committed a criminal act and makes it necessary for law enforcement officials to monitor his actions, citizens of “free” America should not be unknowingly subjected to surveillance in public places such as street corners and sidewalks. If an innocent individual wishes to take a peaceful stroll down a Manhattan sidewalk, she should not have to worry about who is monitoring her. Businesses, homes, and other developments owned and operated by individuals have reason to monitor visitors on their property. This way they can prevent and catch shoplifters, for example. However, in public areas, those which are considered to be common property of the people, I feel that innocent citizens should be free of lurking cameras.

Our society has a general mentality of the more the better, the newer the better. We are constantly purchasing more and newer items. Technologies are evolving faster than we can keep up. Even before we know all there is to know about a piece of technology, we buy it or want it. This mentality transfers to surveillance. If widespread surveillance is available, it must be a good thing, right? It must be useful and just, therefore we should employ it. We rarely thoroughly look at the other side of the coin. What is this doing to our rights and privacy? Is it ok for us to “spy” on unsuspecting people simply because we can? If so, what is stopping us from monitoring people in their own homes? Where is the boundary for privacy? We keep pushing the envelope and the lines become more and more blurred.

Another problem with this surveillance is the imbalance created among citizens. Certain individuals are the watchers, others the watchees. All citizens are not given equal opportunity to monitor others. Most are watched by the few “powerful” watchers. How is it beneficial to our society to create yet another division amongst us?

comments:

response by sandy --sbaldwin, Mon, 27 Mar 2006 14:33:54 -0500 reply
Lindsey: You clearly state your feeling that unasked for surveillance is a violation of our rights. This seems sensible in public places. What about in more ambiguous places, such as within a store or in a doctor's waiting room? Is it justified then - and if so why? If it is justified, should there be a warning of some sort? We could imagine a range of positions, including the claims that surveillance is never ever justified, to various compromise positions, to the position that allows it anwhere anytime. If we grant that things are somewhere in the middle today, then the types of questions you're asking are certainly important. What do you think, then, of the various tactical media responses, e.g. the surveillance camera players? Is this one possible way of responding back?