In general, I think the only benefit of 24-7 surveillance of a population is that it's easier to find the Communists, and then you don't have to ask people to stand up in Congress and lie to support your case.
The Red Scare is, I think, a worthy analogy. Certainly, they didn't have cameras everywhere in society, but there exists a fundamental question: okay, you've established that people "sympathize" with Communism ... what, specifically is illegal about that? (I might mention that, in 1984, the Communists fielded a presidential candidate.)
As a related note, during the 1980's, it became "common knowledge" (take what you will for the degree of assumption among schoolchildren) that we had satellites that could read your newspaper. That sounded scary, but I already knew that it didn't matter in principle: the government could do nothing about what they saw. There's the Bill of Rights, and all sorts of sticky legal stuff for prosecutors to go through if they had to resort to a spy satellite photo in order to prosecute an American citizen. (What if the satellite was looking at, say, Georgia, and saw a thermal image of a married couple feloniously engaging in fellatio? Can you prosecute? Do you really want to admit it took a spy satellite?) True or not, I wasn't worried about the satellites.
A friend of mine is on file as an FBI suspect for the simple crime of leaning against a fence during the 1990 Goodwill Games; the Bureau had apparently installed cameras that took pictures of people who got too close to the fence that marked the athletes' preparation areas. If a bomb ever goes off near where she lives, it's possible she will be questioned as an accessory to terrorism .... (In 1991, a priest at my school was questioned by the Bureau regarding some act of subversion on the grounds that his brother had been photographed by the FBI at a late-60's/early-70's protest at the University of Washington.)
I've heard it asserted on an A&E special that, in London, once you enter the city, the government knows where you are and where you're going at all times. That brings to mind images of the sinister control rooms of various Hollywood supervillains ... how many people does the government devote to monitoring these video feeds?
An Australian gentleman told me, just the other day, that there is a massive video-surveillance array in Australia, but only 1/3 or so of the cameras work ... conformity from fear of being observed.
And I won't start on the Drug War because it's insidious, wrong, and requires days' worth of ranting. Suffice it to say that nothing about the Drug War is legitimate. The very basis of the so-called war is the "potential" for crime. I mean, it's so important to catch you with that joint that they'll catalog hours of thermal images of you having sex or using the bathroom, or otherwise.
* * * * *
The bottom line for me is that video surveillance as a general, daily activity for law enforcement, is bogus. Certainly we have a crime problem, but so little is done to attack the root of crime--I would assert economic stratification as a generalization.
But--if we take gang crime, for instance--what happens if we try educating our children better, so that when they perceive an imbalance that they don't find fair, there are better options for solving the problem than picking up a gun and running drugs and hookers. Come on, if kids are joining organizations whose initiation is to beat you within an inch of your life, or roll the dice and have sex with that many men in a night--I'd say we're not teaching them much of use. Some of the crime we use surveillance for will go away under these circumstances.
But that's not nearly the whole picture. Something about the propriety of laws is important. Just because a law makes something illegal does not mean the law is right. It was against the law to teach a man to read if his skin was dark ... that wasn't too long ago. It was--technically, still is--illegal to serve alcohol to a native American in Tacoma, Washington. You can be arrested in Florida for using slang.
Thus, we need laws that get things done. Consider: one arrest every minute in this country for a drug "offense" (80% are simple possession; up to 75% of that for marijuana). Sure, there are important issues to discuss regarding drugs and crime. But alcohol Prohibition ended largely because the people were sick of the increased violence that occurred after Prohibition was enacted. Furthermore, would pot be illegal if growers had the finances to buy politicians the way the tobacco and alcohol industries do? (A 1992 pot-legalization effort in Oregon was outspent by a cadre of "anti-drug" opponents with vital interests in the state's industries: cotton, petroleum, paper, and pharmaceutical interests outspent the initiative sponsors tenfold; they all have products that would compete with hempen alternatives.) And the whole time, nobody has ever given me a reason why pot is illegal; well, ok ... not a good one that makes any sense. What, aside from swelling the prison ranks 900% in twenty-five years, has the War on Drugs accomplished? Very little, in terms of overall effect. I would assert these laws are bad.
The Oregon State Patrol flies airplanes over Portland, looking for criminals--specifically, they're looking for speeders on twelve miles of highway. (Funny thing about that is that they should've been on the ground; High Times magazine once featured a photograph of a magnificent Northern Lights #5/Skunk breed growing six and a half feet tall within casual spotting distance of Interstate 205, where the planes fly.) I should mention, for relevance, that the ticketing process is simple: plane flies over highway, clocks vehicle manually; passenger takes photograph of car, records alleged speed; driver of vehicle receives ticket in mail, with photograph of their license plate (allegedly taken during the act), and the ticket cannot be argued (it's a popular Oregon judicial opinion that it is not the place of the courts to question the honesty or dignity of the state's law enforcement bodies).
And what does it all get us?
A huge tax bill.
Little effect on crime.
Law enforcement too busy to have a consistent impact.
A measureable segment (barely under 1%, but rising) of the population in federal prisons, and even more in local facilities.
A paranoid population.
Politicians writing bad laws for votes.
Thus I would say that, while video surveillance has its place (specific targets, special events, and so forth, and all with warrants), the increased use of the technique in law enforcement has had a thoroughly negative impact.
Furthermore, with Miranda in question, and the courts having removed a citizen's right to avoid the police without being charged with a crime, where's it all leading? It's a popular notion with gun-toters (if they take our machine guns, then they'll take our shotguns ... ad nauseum.)
Specifically, as to how the government can protect us ... how do we view government? (Consider, please, this contextual idea: before the Civil War, federal documents referred to "these United States"; afterward, the term became "the United States". That's a big change in how the people saw their union and its government.) Has the noose of law enforcement gotten tighter, say, since World War II?
But by and large, education seems to be the thing lacking among most criminals. Why not give it a try? It might work.
I might ask, in this case, that we consider the CDA and various internet-related crime bills. The congressmen who voted for the CDA apparently saw the internet as something wholly removed from expression. Is an e-mail of different legal standing than snail mail? If so, why? (Rhetorical questions, but if anyone's got a theory, I'll be happy to give it some thought.) Or is a real-time chat any different from a phone call? Are the words and pictures any different from those in a magazine? In the sense of that distinction, we're also recalling a congress that seriously considered attempting to ban people, by law, from the internet for the crime of advocating drug legalization. What I'm getting at here is that the lawmakers never have been that great with these issues. So much so that people cheered when Clinton and Newt shut down the government; not because they supported either side, but because it meant there would be no other legislation taking place for a few days ... less time for Congress to do its hurt.
But in order to protect ourselves, as individuals, communities, and as a nation, from crime, we need to reconsider what we call crime; we need to educate against the foundations of criminal motives; we need to remember that this government is subject to OUR will, as people. We don't work to support this economy, or these laws. They're there for us. And if the laws don't help us, they need to be fixed.
And then we can see where we need to point the cameras.
Thank you for your kind patience with this post ...
--Tiassa
------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this beast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")
