About this time last year, the Madison Police Department
introduced a proposal to install mobile cameras to nab dangerous criminals on
the city streets. That proposal passed without real objection ? spare this
columnist ? because lawmakers assured everyone their use would be limited
accordingly.

But it seems in the year that has passed, cameras have grown
in favor so much so that Madison specifically, and Wisconsin generally, have
decided they?re going to find new ways to intrude upon your personal life even
more.

Just months after MPD received funding for their mobile
cameras, Madison?s city buses decided to install even more cameras to battle
the apparent epidemic of crime on Madison Metro.

And as if that wasn?t enough, state lawmakers are now
considering allowing local municipalities to install cameras at intersections
to combat red light runners. The cameras will take pictures of these
lead-footed violators and send the picture to the car?s owner along with a
pricey ticket.

Now I?m sure some will read this and think that my privacy
objection to this program is just pure alarmism. Therein lies the problem for
civil libertarians. Programs like this one get to a fundamental interest: Who
doesn?t want safer streets, busses and intersections?

The truth is we all do. The question we should be asking
instead is ? do these programs actually do what they intend to, and are they
worth it in light of the freedom lost?

In a political dialogue, safety really has to have a
two-part definition: the obvious, protecting us from physical harm, and the
not-so-obvious, protecting us from ourselves. In this framework, using cameras
as liberally as we aspire to fails both of these requirements of safety.

These programs are hailed as crime prevention, but if
anything, they just serve prosecutors looking for plea bargains and criminals
who want to avoid being caught.

In order to prevent crime, criminals have to know there is a
camera on a bus or intersection to deter any sort of behavior. In the event
they don?t know and still commit the crime, the only thing that is going to be
safer is the district attorney?s political career as he boosts his already high
conviction rate.

For red light runners, this foreknowledge poses a legitimate
issue as to the effectiveness of cameras as prevention: not all who venture
forward illegally into stoplight-controlled intersections possess the intent to
do so.

In the event that a criminal actually knows there is a
camera on the bus, but still wants to commit a crime, he or she is not without
option; all that person has to do is avoid the videotaped area. If the insides
of busses are being caught on camera, all a criminal has to do is wait until
the person gets off the bus to take care of their business.

These are hardly the kind of reassurances sought. However,
despite the fact that cameras fail to actually make us physically safer, they
still do not protect us from ourselves.

Equally important to our personal safety is our political
safety and freedom. Privacy may be a touchy subject in constitutional
dialogues, but the basic principle of being left alone remains a strong one in
American culture, even if it isn?t directly explicated in the Constitution.

The notion of police and cameras on every corner watching
every step you take is one that does not run well with democracies as we know
them. While it is certainly legal, it doesn?t make sense to have a state that
honors and values privacy but would police itself so heavily.

But that?s precisely what these programs aim to do. For
those who claim that installing a camera at an intersection to stop red light
runners is just that and nothing more, one need look no further than their
explosive growth as a crime-fighting tool and surveillance mechanism.

Although we live in an age when you can Google anyone?s
personal history, GPS track your friends on your cell phone and even install
speedometer monitors in your child?s car, the case for privacy is not yet a
lost cause.

American culture and law still holds privacy in high regard
and for those who would hold a fire sale of that liberty for an unattainable
and unsustainable definition of safety, there is still opposition. But with
every step they take to erode our definitions of privacy and safety, the more
that becomes a part of our culture.

Which is precisely why it is so important to start making a
big deal out of little things like cameras now, until it becomes too late.

Robert Phansalkar
([email protected]) is a
first-year law student.