Does all this video recording really help society

Great Debates
21

Cameras are not nearly as omnipresent as they can be. If they were actually omnipresent, it would not be possible to escape the eye of the camera and get away with a bank robbery. I don’t mean a camera in every bank. I mean 20 different angles on every square inch of public space. No point at which the bank robber (or other criminal) is not tracked from the point of the crime until the police decide to pick him up. We are orders of magnitude away from the sort of omnipresence of cameras I’m talking about. Who robs a bank in that world, when it’s a near certainty that you’ll get caught?

The cost of punishing some criminals continues to rise. As I pointed out with the traffic camera example, the cost of punishing people who don’t stop at red lights has fallen precipitously. Are you sure that won’t happen for other crimes? The only part of the list of steps you mentioned that can’t be automated is the court one. How long do you think it will it take a jury to deliberate when there’s HD video from 20 angles of the alleged crime? I’m also not even convinced that the court part of this process is necessary in the future. Would you hire someone if, when you ran a search on them, you saw video of them stealing a TV from their former employer?

I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. The “closet” protects individuals from a hostile environment. I think there are many behaviors that, when people are not able to hide them, we’ll generally accept. But there are others that simply will not be accepted, and the lines will become quite rigidly drawn wherever societal consensus happens to be when privacy vanishes.

22

We actually do already have the technology. Radio Lab just did an episode about it. Its’ relatively new and not widely used in part because the costs outweigh the benefits. What you are suggesting will never be possible for a variety of reasons. Doubly so when the bank theft that costs more occurs online. In short, few are looking to solve a problem that doesn’t exist when there is little incentive to do so.

No, but I am not sure why you think this is a bad thing in context.

The court process is not going to be automated and neither are most parts of the justice system. Again, you are ignoring the opposite side of the equation. A society that can monitor literally every angle and can automate the courts, jailers, etc. also has the resources to feed, house, and provide everyone with a luxurious lifestyle at little cost. No one would feel the need to rob a bank if all the creature comforts were available to them along with a free living wage.

Where is the evidence for that? What makes you think homosexuality and other things wouldn’t have been accepted earlier if people realized how many people are gay and that they are by and large normal people? I think you are forgetting that that hostile environment exists in part because gays felt isolated and marginalized.

Here’s an interesting thought experiment. They estimate roughly 1/3 of women will have an abortion during their life. If those names were made public, do you think people would soften their stances against abortion or harden them? Undoubtably, many of those women are pro-life publicly, but would have to explain their seeming hypocrisy once outed. It would be the equivalent of what happens to most gay GOP politicians. There is no refuge of privacy for bigots to be publicly anti-gay and privately gay for the most part, and that is generally a good thing.

And it’s not just hypocrites that would have to account for their actions. It’s often hard to find prominent women who are pro-choice that openly admit they had an abortion to the public. If everyone knew who got an abortion, people would slowly start to realize they aren’t monsters, naive people, or victims by and large. Pro-lifers would see people they know and respect have gotten it done and would maybe rethink protesting PP and making heroes out of people who openly threaten doctors.

Yes, a few might opt not to get one initially for fear of public scorn, but most start to feel less shameful about the whole thing because they’s realize they aren’t awful people making decisions alone. I think it would help people see the issue as less controversial. Just like we have with things like cosmetic surgery and “test tube babies”. What do you think would happen?

23

(For context, this was a response to my point about the costs of enforcing red light violations falling, and suggesting that the costs for other policing would fall). Again, I’m not saying this is a bad thing, as you’ve now suggested twice. This is a direct response to your claim that the cost of punishing criminals continues to rise, and that the cost of punishment will prevent full automated enforcement of the law. It will not.

The actual courtroom will not be automated, but that’s not necessarily relevant to most enforcement. How many people who get red light violation tickets see the inside of a courtroom?

There are plenty of rich criminals out there. Human nature does not work that way.

Well, black people were enslaved and terribly mistreated for hundreds of years. How hard is it to realize that black people are just people? From my comparatively enlightened vantage point in history, it seems pretty obvious. Yet even great philosophers and humanitarians of the time seemed to have great trouble making the leap.

So, let’s imagine we had omnipresent surveillance starting in 1820. Are black people on a faster path to full civil rights in this alternate world? Perhaps they are, because everyone can see the horrible abuse they suffer and their clear humanity. Or, perhaps they are not, because they are an oppressed underclass, and the overclass will further oppress them with this expanded power. Do we have an underground railroad in such a world? I think we don’t. There were laws in many places making it illegal for black people to learn to read, but some managed to do so anyway. Do they manage when it’s impossible to learn in secret? I think they don’t.

I think you are correct that attitudes toward abortion would soften if everyone who had one were outed. But 1/3 of women is a lot of people. How small do you think the fraction of humanity that exhibits a taboo trait or participates in a taboo behavior has to be before the response is not “these are people just like you and me”, but “we need to stop these sickos”.

Pick some behavior that you think is truly gross and morally beyond the pale for this thought experiment, since I imagine both you and I think that abortions are ok, and that gay people ought to have rights.

Let’s imagine that tomorrow, we find out that 1% of humans have had sex with a dead animal carcass. No one’s harmed, but it’s pretty icky. Do you think the general response of humanity will be to embrace the diversity of the human sexual experience? Or maybe something less accepting.

24

Yes, but as I have already stated, I do not think automation will ever reach most parts of the justice system. Red lights and speeding are extremely low hanging fruit.

Yes, that is my point. The reason you can save a lot on red light tickets is because the process is fairly straight forward unlike say a DUI or armed robbery. Those two usually require tons of man hours and court proceedings to adjudicate, and automation isn’t going to mitigate that much.

Crime by and large does. This is why well off people usually don’t knowingly commit crimes.

Pretty hard for most people. Do you realize most people live very segregated lives, and until recently had no desire to empathize with others?

But, again, technology doesn’t work like that usually. You don’t get omnipresent surveillance without strides in all sorts of social fields that make that reality impossible.

Yes, they are. We can be fairly confident information and exposure to the brutal reality of slavery would awaken the public sooner. We can see this in how the chilling portrayals of slavery in books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped many see the evil of the institution. This is why some credit the book with changing attitudes in such a way that made the Civil War possible. If a book could do that, a video of such cruelty would have made the point even better.

A third of women is not that much more than the portion of Blacks or Hispanics in this country just for reference sake. That said, obviously numbers are an issue when you are talking about the majority making radical changes in behavior to accommodate a minority group. That, IMO, is part of why transgender people are having a harder time than gay people did. However, when all that is asked of the majority is to stop enslavement or provide basic human rights and respect, I don’t think they numbers matter as much. Regardless, I am not sure that surveillance really means much in this case. For example, there is far less stigma on things like people who do porn or have weird sexual fetishes than there was despite their small numbers. Exposure to a broad variety of difference, people, and outcomes makes most people less likely to get hung up on one particular one.

Well, I disagree that no one is harmed with people have sex with dead animal carcasses. I get the point of analogy, but there is a fine line between stuff I merely disagree with, and morally repugnant stuff that is illegal for good reason. In the latter case, I don’t think such people are deserving of privacy any more than a murderer or a guy looking at child porn.

25

I don’t think that’s remotely true. For one, technology spreads way faster than social change. We could be as socially progressive as possible, but when we get tiny cameras everywhere, so does Saudi Arabia. They’ve gotten lots of technological progress so far despite women basically being chattel. Or do you think there’s something that will happen in the next 20-30 years that will make a difference?

Who is harmed? I’m sticking with my animal example, because it’s fairly obvious who’s harmed by murderers and child pornographers.

For significant periods of history, homosexuality and miscegenation were considered by many to be “morally repugnant stuff that is illegal for good reason”.

26

Yes, but we are talking about democracies like the US are we not? Because it’s not as if the average person in a corrupt dictatorship has access to much technology even if the government does.

The animal for one.

Okay. All you are pointing out is that social mores change. This is irrespective of our ideals of privacy or surveillance.

27

That one made me think. At the end of the day I believe it is not true. The collective indifference of society is not a reliable protection for anyone, because it is a highly volatile thing. Small causes can obliterate it in a heartbeat and suddenly turn the spotlight of society’s attention to a person - and that attention is often decidedly hostile. There have been people whose lives have been all but destroyed by the mass reaction to an unwise twitter posting. Once someone draws the ire of the masses, there is no stopping it. You do not get a fair trial, you are just stomped on.

Of course you can say: “If you are afraid of something like that happening, then do not post on twitter.” Agreed - posting on twitter is a choice you make. But being recorded on video on every corner is not. So who protects you from becoming ‘famous’ through a security video that someone found hillarious - or outrageous - enough to post it on youtube?

28

I have come around to the point I embrace omnipresent video recording of public areas, for one thing police misconduct or abuse of citizens becomes much more difficult and it can provide evidence for serious crimes. I think it is a good thing.

The one thing I think is essential though is that for authorities to access the video there must be a system much like a warrant without which the footage cannot be accessed period. If an assault if reported police can apply for a warrant to access the footage from specific areas for a specific time period to provide evidence for court or to help identify the criminal. Also that software designed to parse through the entire corpus of footage looking for patterns that suggest criminal activity must be banned, there must be a victim and a specific known crime or incident to allow viewing.

As long as police don’t use the omnipresent surveillance to go on fishing expeditions for victim less crimes, such as software looking for the pattern of hookers and johns or public intoxication or probable drug dealing it would be a benefit to society.

However if there is software analyzing 24/7 for signs of any crime no matter how minor and generating tons of false positives or constant logs of individuals activity and location it would be a terrible oppressive society to live in where everyone is anxious at all times.

Basically there is a way to do this right and be a benefit to society.

29

While I basically agree, I think this fact doesn’t speak to my point which is acknowledging that our privacy is dependent upon other people.

It does speak somewhat to the latter issue of things improving because people have better things to do however. While I agree that such things are more common, they are also usually fleeting and of less intensity than they often were in the past. With a history of literal lynch mobs, sunset towns, and homegrown terrorists like the KKK, the internet outrage police pale in comparison.

Nothing. But acts that happen in public places will always be subject to commentary.
That is the unfortunate reality of life. If I fall in public, people might laugh. A video of such a things will likely heighten the level of ridicule, but such things are fairly rare.

30

Well - the relatively new phenomenon of the ‘shitstorm’ may be less drastic than the historical lynchmobs who preferred to let the target of their ire dangle from the nearest tree. It “pales in comparison”, so does that mean we should be fine with it? The victims of this kind of private justice do not ket killed anymore today, they just get publicly spurned, ostracized, fired from their jobs. It may pale in comparison but it still is pretty bad in its own right.

You are right. But one could argue that the more common public surveillance becomes the less rare these things are likely to be. And ridicule is not the worst that can come out of it.
I was just trying to illustrate why I believe that those of us who feel a little uneasy with the idea of an omnipresent camera surveillance may have reasons for it. I do not deny that these cameras can be quite useful when it comes to solving crimes and I am by no means advocating a total ban. But there is a price to pay for that increase in security and I feel that price is often underestimated (or even entirely overlooked).

31

I don’t think we need to limit this discussion to the US. Even within the US, there are many and diverse societies that are not particularly progressive. But that was just the simplest counter to your claim that we won’t reach certain technological levels until we have a society capable of dealing with them responsibly.

The idea that technological change requires progressive social ideals is incorrect. Sure, if we didn’t let women work, then it would take longer to get there, because we’re artificially limiting the talent that society can bring to bear on technological problems. But there’s no law of the universe that says you can’t invent efficient general purpose computing and digital recording devices until after you have a sexual revolution. The two aren’t linked in any significant way. And there are plenty of countries and societies that are making technological advances despite being nowhere near the level of social progress that western democracies have achieved.

No, all these perverts I made up go buy a chicken at the grocery store. Then they eat it when they’re done. No more harm to any animal than the average meat eater. Or feel free make up your own icky perversion in which no harm is done. The specifics aren’t important, as long as you and I and the vast majority of society would think it really icky. Does society accept the perverts or not? Is the average chicken-fucker in a better, more accepted situation the day after they’re all forcibly outed, or does the chicken-fucking closet serve a useful purpose?

My central point is that social mores need breathing room to change. They won’t change if we’re under constant surveillance.

32

No, but it does mean we should put it into perspective and not cast 100% of the blame on the technology given that same technology allows people to fight back among other things. For example, that bus monitor who was bullied by the kids on the bus initially faced public ridicule when the video went viral. However, soon after people online rewarded her with around $700k, and the kids were suspended. Of course there is not always a silver lining, but public attention can be both good and bad.

Maybe, but I would argue that something occurring fairly frequently would minimize the public attention any singe event gets.

I agree omnipresent cameras are not an unmitigated good, but I think we need to have some perspective on the matter in terms of not overstating the negative effects of such changes.

But you are twisting what I said. I didn’t say one cannot happen without the other, but rather that they usually happen in tandem for a variety of reasons. Yes, there are counter examples in dictatorships and limited circumstances, but by and large, the trend is true. Yes, you can point to some backwards town, village, or country, but the trend line is clear broadly speaking. You are basically arguing the strife in Syria means the world isn’t more peaceful even though it is. Even most repressive countries are less repressive than they were.

Again, you are misrepresenting my claim.

Let’s agree to disagree on this point.

But mass surveillance will never mean zero privacy, and it certainly won’t mean outing everyone who does something “icky”. This is just a strawman that bears no resemblance to reality. There is never going to be a time when there is no private space for people to engage in whatever behavior they want.

But history doesn’t actually back your theory. Broad acceptance of gays has occurred faster than any documented change in modern history, and a large part of that was due to technology. This occurred in the age of smartphones, ubiquitous cameras, and people being forcefully outed on occasion. That’s just one of countless examples of why the whole, “but what about the chicken fuckers” argument just doesn’t hold any weight.

Any reasonable counter-factual regarding societies attitudes on things like abortion, pornography, or slavery would have been hastened by technology mitigating the ability of abhorrent acts being done in private, and shining a light on the humanity of those who are different.

33

We may have to agree to disagree on most of it :wink:

I understand your argument. Increased openness has coincided with great social progress and increased acceptance of differences. But I think that privacy (allowing for the existence of a “closet”) is a necessary part of that process, and that technological advances are going to make it harder and harder to maintain. I think we’ve both made the points that we’re going to make.