Heck, the Republicans probably wouldn’t want to monitor such places because inevitably they’d discover other Republicans.
To be (relatively) safe, run the process through a conventional warrant process, i.e. the recordings are only accessible after a crime has been committed or probable cause established to the satisfaction of a judge, and not one of those secret FISA judges, either.
I just listened to the podcast (as opposed to reading the synopsis) and wow, what a powerful tool it would be for crime-fighting. I didn’t realize that it could be used in real-time like that. The Juarez demonstration was stunning. Part of me is pissed that we’re not rolling this out immediately to save lives but as I posted earlier I understand the fears.
Maybe institute laws:
- Where accessing this data requires a warrant.
- The resolution must be poor enough that people can’t be identified.
I’m not sure what we could do to prevent private companies from collecting similar data, though. I think it would be hard to craft a law that stopped private companies from doing something similar but still allowing stuff like Google street view.
I don’t think Republicans would be any more likely to abuse this (e.g. they already know who’s at abortion clinics). I think Kobal2’s idea that it would be more likely to be used to discredit political opponents or maybe used by the police to harass politicians/reporters who are deemed opponents.
It’s also interesting (to me) to think of ways it could be defeated, like walking into a mall and coming out a different door.
I do think that the technology is moving way faster than ethics are. Like, the drone stuff concerns me a little. If my neighbor wants to my take overhead pictures of me while I’m doing yoga on my back patio and I throw a rock at it and knock it out of the sky (cuz I have a badass throwing arm), who is going to get in trouble? Does it matter if the drone is 30 feet in the air, or 10 feet? Does it matter if the drone is doing loops around the yard, or it’s hovering just above me? Should we consider how horrible the world would be if everyone decided to spy-drone their neighbors, or should we assume that recreational spy-droning will always be so rare and insignificant that it doesn’t need legislating?
But an Eye of Sauron in the sky? The techno-geek in me is all in favor! But I know that it wouldn’t be limited to law enforcement. I’m envisioning that the images would be available to whomever has $$ to pay for them (kind of like how certain high-resolution satellite imagery is available now). Your run-of-the mill stalker wouldn’t be able to afford that price tag. But a hired political assassin might.
Every technology comes with a “dark side” application, though. I have a hard time allowing rapists and kidnappers to roam free on the off-hand chance that someone’s landlord might find out that they’ve got too many people crammed into their apartment. (Yes, I listened to the show too when it aired. I found it fascinating).
I didn’t mean to imply that they would be MORE likely to abuse it. They were just a convenient example. The POINT is that we start more surveillance to try to prevent/punish the kind of crimes that we ALL agree should be prevented/punished. Next thing you know, it’s used to destroy the lives of people who are doing something that other people disapprove of. Like, say, smoking pot. Just imagine what fun Drug Warriors can have with a tool like this…
Maybe the answer is as simple as requiring warrants. But based on the amount of overreach we’ve seen recently by the CIA and the NSA, I don’t really personally trust that answer much. It’s too easy to loosen the controls once the surveillance system is fully in place and entrenched.
Besides, based on the number of people we have imprisoned in this country, I just don’t see where we’ve gotten the idea that we have a real problem arresting people and convicting them of crimes. If anything, we’re too goddamn good at it already. Or we’ve made too many things illegal.
-VM
I think it boils down to one variable:
If someone you loved were murdered and they used surveillance photo/video to capture, prosecute, and convict the guilty party, would you want the the photos/videos used for that purpose?
No, it doesn’t boil down to that. If you asked me whether the murderer of my loved one should be convicted using a confession that was beaten out of them, I might say yes because I am more angry at the murderer than I am interested in due process. That does not justify police using torture.
Same thing here. My interest in my loved one does not make me a fair arbiter of the civil rights of millions of people who would be having their movements monitored constantly.
If something is illegal, then if you get caught you should pay the penalty. If the act shouldn’t be illegal, then the law should be changed. (IMO, all drugs should be legal).
If you are doing something illegal or legal that could ‘ruin’ your life if someone catches you doing it, then the bloody simplest solution is to NOT do it. And if you choose to do it in public areas where there is no expectation for privacy, then you essentially deserve everything that comes your way.
Ah, I’m sure you say that now, but I am curious (honestly) if your answer would be the same if someone you loved actually was murdered.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I think I answered your question precisely. Read the first paragraph again.
I did. You mentioned torture. How is video/photo surveillance synonymous to torture?
Especially video surveillance where there is no expectation of privacy.
Did you then go on to read the second paragraph?
Let me summarize: asking a victim, or the loved one of a victim, about civil rights will result in the elimination of many fundamental rights. That isn’t right.
As I said before, if a cop is watching someone on the street, I have no problem with that. If cops are watching ten million people simultaneously on the street, there’s a fundamental difference.
I absolutely agree with you.
Except that judges do a pretty good job of protecting people’s civil rights with granting on not granting search warrants. If this system is used with warrants necessary to access the photo/video, how is that a problem to civil rights?
That’s a different question than what you said earlier. You said it all boiled down to one variable: whether the loved one of a victim wanted the evidence to be used.
Have you changed your mind and now believe that this debate does not boil down to that one variable?
Oh, yeah, I can see how what I said is confusing. Of course there is more than one variable involved. But the bottom line is how would I respond if someone I loved was murdered? Any other speculation is meaningless because a hypothetical example is never as honest an answer as the answer to a real world delima.
You’re confusing me now. Do you think this question should be settled by asking the victim of a crime how the Bill of Rights applies to this situation?
I say no, because the victim (or the friend of a victim) has zero objectivity on the matter.
Am I a bad person for thinking that if I were suddenly kidnapped, I’d want the police to use whatever photographic evidence they could round up to save me before I became another dead body in a ditch?
There’s a serial killer on the prowl right now in OH. I can’t believe that people are saying it would be wrong for the the town of Chillicothe to do in-the-sky surveillance for the next 30 days or until they find the guy, whichever one comes first. If the images turn up nothing, the police could destroy them. But at least the police could say they tried.
I’m not seeing the creepiness in something like that. Not when almost every block in every major city is already under constant surveillance. If it is alright to subject downtown residents to such government intrusion, why not everyone?
I think we both understand the question(s) at hand I think we just have vastly different opinions on the topic.
Yes, that is precisely what I think.
Your point would be valid in the case of torture. But not for surveillance which is entirely automated and protected from observation by having to get a warrant that is essentially the same as a search warrant to review the photos/videos.
Objectivity has it’s place. But so does the rights of the victim (subjectivity).