Tweet
The topic of surveillance of Iraqi's in the US got me thinking. Would massive public surveillance be a bad thing. Let's weigh the pro's and con's. Please add to mine and give your opinion.
Pro's
Since witnesses can lie, evidence can be tampered with, the only real objective and honest witness is the video camera. A network of real-time camera's spread throughout public areas would no doubt give law enforcement and the justice system a valuable tool in prosecuting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Privacy people would be against this, but if you're in public, I think that you forfeit any right to not be watched.
I think all law enforcement should be broadcasting and recording in real-time. This would not only help in law enforcement, but it would also help protect victims of police corruption and brutality. I think it would also help in the training of law enforcement officials because it would be possible to review and analyze mistakes.
This technology could be eventually linked with facial recognition software in order to track suspicious persons, help urban planning by recording trends in traffic (pedestrian and vehicular), help in finding missing persons, and help in the apprehension of fugitives.
Overall, I think that a system of massive public surveillance would ultimately improve the accuracy of the justice system and increase public safety. The key thing to remember is that this is public surveillance... not private.
Con's
Although I don't agree with it, it's important to point out that many people are uncomfortable with public surveillance because of privacy concerns. But I think this is a no-brainer. If you are in public, there is a general understanding that you are visible to others. What difference does a camera make?
There is a potential for abuse. This could be a slippery-slope to big-brother type of surveillance and other types of technologies that would keep all people under the watch of the government. And certainly a system like this could be abused. But if it were to be created, it would be important to clearly define what's legal, what's not, and to put the agency(s) in charge under a blanket of accountability.
Costs involved. In order to put out enough cameras to effectively watch all major public areas would require a tremendous cost. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. It no doubt would provide a lot of jobs in the production, maintenance, and operation of such a system. But who's going to foot the bill. Ultimately, it would have to be funded by the government. It would only be possible if the electronics were manufactured at an exceptionally low cost. Without hiring kids in Southeast Asia, the most economically viable way to do this would be to have the government fund non-profit operations. Quality will suffer for quantity. Or if a private firm can do it, then they should get the contract. The best way to manufacture such equipment would be to have a high degree of automation. But I don't think that the technology exists today to do this. Cost will eventually determine this program's real world application.
Sava's Opinion
If it can be done, I say do it.
I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere in this post, so please correct me instead of telling me how wrong I am, mkay? And please, give your opinions, but don't start flame wars. Just list pro's and con's, them tell us whether you think it should be done or not.
Pro's
Since witnesses can lie, evidence can be tampered with, the only real objective and honest witness is the video camera. A network of real-time camera's spread throughout public areas would no doubt give law enforcement and the justice system a valuable tool in prosecuting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Privacy people would be against this, but if you're in public, I think that you forfeit any right to not be watched.
I think all law enforcement should be broadcasting and recording in real-time. This would not only help in law enforcement, but it would also help protect victims of police corruption and brutality. I think it would also help in the training of law enforcement officials because it would be possible to review and analyze mistakes.
This technology could be eventually linked with facial recognition software in order to track suspicious persons, help urban planning by recording trends in traffic (pedestrian and vehicular), help in finding missing persons, and help in the apprehension of fugitives.
Overall, I think that a system of massive public surveillance would ultimately improve the accuracy of the justice system and increase public safety. The key thing to remember is that this is public surveillance... not private.
Con's
Although I don't agree with it, it's important to point out that many people are uncomfortable with public surveillance because of privacy concerns. But I think this is a no-brainer. If you are in public, there is a general understanding that you are visible to others. What difference does a camera make?
There is a potential for abuse. This could be a slippery-slope to big-brother type of surveillance and other types of technologies that would keep all people under the watch of the government. And certainly a system like this could be abused. But if it were to be created, it would be important to clearly define what's legal, what's not, and to put the agency(s) in charge under a blanket of accountability.
Costs involved. In order to put out enough cameras to effectively watch all major public areas would require a tremendous cost. This could be a good thing or a bad thing. It no doubt would provide a lot of jobs in the production, maintenance, and operation of such a system. But who's going to foot the bill. Ultimately, it would have to be funded by the government. It would only be possible if the electronics were manufactured at an exceptionally low cost. Without hiring kids in Southeast Asia, the most economically viable way to do this would be to have the government fund non-profit operations. Quality will suffer for quantity. Or if a private firm can do it, then they should get the contract. The best way to manufacture such equipment would be to have a high degree of automation. But I don't think that the technology exists today to do this. Cost will eventually determine this program's real world application.
Sava's Opinion
If it can be done, I say do it.
I'm sure I'm wrong somewhere in this post, so please correct me instead of telling me how wrong I am, mkay? And please, give your opinions, but don't start flame wars. Just list pro's and con's, them tell us whether you think it should be done or not.
Lefty!
Comment