Is it right or appropriate for a democratic government to be afraid of its people? One would like to think not. Is it appropriate for corporations to know everything about you? Definitely not. Is it appropriate for anything or anyone to make you afraid of even leaving your house? Absolutely not. However, increasingly within the United States and other countries, this would seem to be the case. The issue lies in the amount of surveillance being carried out on all of us by our federal government, corporations and local governments.
Post-Sept. 11 America is a curious mix of anxiety, apprehension and a certain violent willingness to sacrifice — be it knowingly or not — our civil liberties. Riding on this fear, the Patriot Act was passed in October 2001. This act has provisions that allow for law enforcement to conduct searches on whomever they wish without requiring that the subject be notified and also allows for FBI agents to investigate anyone they wish without probable cause, as long as the stated reason is for intelligence purposes.
One might be tempted to say that we must give up such freedoms in order to catch future terrorists, that this type of Act is necessary to preserve America. I can only respond by saying that this type of thinking is extremely dangerous.
First, let us not forget that the Sept. 11 hijackers were caught on video surveillance and that the current administration was warned, but failed to act. Secondly, if we begin sacrificing that which makes our country fair and democratic, then haven't the terrorists succeeded in destroying us? Just last week a federal judge ruled two provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional, citing that the Fourth Amendment was put in place to protect us against the kind of abuse the Patriot Act endorses.
Outside of the broad implications of surveillance on the federal level comes surveillance of the corporate. Increasingly, corporations are attempting to harvest data on consumers — sometimes without the consumer's knowledge — in order to completely customize advertising. An example of this is the "Mini USA" billboard campaign, where if a consumer has purchased a Mini automobile, they can then choose to register on the Mini website by answering some personal questions. The company then sends a small RFID device (Radio Frequency Identification; the same technology in passports and credit cards) that communicates with any Mini USA billboard, which in turn, broadcasts a customized message to the driver as they drive past it.
Again, one could suggest that this is quite innocuous, that since the driver chooses to register, it is really not a violation of privacy. However, the fact remains that consumers are willingly giving information about themselves and their identities to corporations. If we do not stop to analyze and question this trend, we may begin to increasingly engage in this type of activity willingly with any number of corporations, without even questioning the intent.
On the level of corporate and federal surveillance, at least we as consumers and citizens have the ability to question and resist if we so choose. But what about on the local level? What about public surveillance?
According to the Data Privacy Lab there are currently approximately 10,000 cameras operating in public spaces in the U.S., approximately 2,500 of which are in Manhattan alone. There are also plans in place to increase the amount of cameras in the U.S. by the thousands in the next year. Yet again, one might ask what is so terrible about having cameras?
The problem here is that, in urban environments, anyone can be identified with facial recognition software and tracked throughout their entire day by a centralized surveillance system. In London, there are approximately 10,000 operational cameras — inciting Washington, New York and Philadelphia to rapidly follow suit without engaging in any kind of public debate. For instance, no one seems to note that in London, despite the overabundance of cameras, 80 percent of crimes go unsolved, according to the Evening Standard. Also, according to U.K. Home Affairs spokesperson Nick Clegg, the U.K. is rapidly becoming a "surveillance society ruled by the technology and the politics of fear."
There is nothing innocuous about our government breaking the law and violating our trust as citizens. There is nothing harmless about corporations storing endless amounts of personal data about us as consumers. There is nothing useful about being photographed and identified endlessly just walking down the street.
We must resist the apathy we have toward ourselves and begin to understand that surveillance dehumanizes and turns people into nothing more than numbers and faces, and perhaps less.
Wasim Salman ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in international studies.
