We're Watching

surveillance camerasA discussion on NPR’s Talk of the Nation (TOTN) opinion page this afternoon focused on the use of surveillance cameras for security in the wake of last week’s Boston Marathon bombing and aftermath.  The show’s summary read, “Investigators in the Boston Marathon bombings were able to identify the suspects using footage from surveillance cameras. Some believe that this shows the need for surveillance cameras in public spaces, while others believe that such cameras encroach on our civil liberties.”

The opinion pieces used as the foundation for the discussion were Farhad Manjoo, Slate.com, “We Need More Cameras, And We Need Them Now;”  Falguni A. Sheth and Robert E. Prasch, Salon.com, “In Boston, Our Bloated Surveillance State Didn’t Work;” and Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, “In Praise of Surveillance Camera.” 

At one point, TOTN host Neal Conan cited the 9-0 vote by the Cambridge City Council in  February 2009 to oppose the installation eight surveillance cameras in the city.  According to the ACLU press release, the cameras were intended to form part of a network linking Cambridge and eight other Greater Boston communities, funded with a $4.6 million Department of Homeland Security grant.  The press release subhead  read, ACLU praises first-in-the-state vote to reject Homeland Security monitoring.” 

The younger alleged Boston marathon bomber, Dzohkhar Tsarnaev, lived in Cambridge, and the killing of the MIT police officer and the car hijacking by the two alleged bombers occurred in Cambridge.  Listeners were left to draw their own conclusions while Conan mused what the ACLU’s position might be today.

But it was the perspectives of a number of the show’s callers that Orwell was prescient about the government as Big Brother or that law enforcement is gradually strangulating our personal rights and freedoms which has me confounded.

Terms like “Orwellian” and “big brother,” “slippery slope,” “government invasion of privacy” were used. There was discussion about the increasing presence of “law enforcement” in our lives.

The Preamble to the Constitution says unequivocally that “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”   And federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are regulated by the governmental bodies which create and monitor them, bodies of representatives that we the people elect.  

If we believe that surveillance has a place in our society with or within limits or if we believe that privacy is inviolate, even in public places, then we the people should work to define the  limits or prevent or remove surveillance.  That’s only the job of government if we surrender our willingness to assure that  our government is “of the people, by the people and for the people,”  as Lincoln so eloquently framed it.

If government federal, state or local government surveillance is heading down the slippery slope to Orwellian dystopia, then — to borrow a phrase from a classic Walt Kelley “Pogo” comic strip panel — “we have seen the enemy and it is us,” .

Image: Surveillance cameras licensed by LikeTheDew.com at iStock.com
Dr. Nick De Bonis

Dr. Nick De Bonis

Nick De Bonis has been a college instructor or professor one score and six, teaching undergraduate and graduate classes in marketing, advertising, management, broadcasting and communications. A marketing lecturer at Georgia Southern, he's also taught at Savannah (GA) State, Macon State, the Goizueta Business School at Emory, California State-Fullerton, Texas A&M, LSU and Pepperdine. His professional career includes both newspapers and radio, as a reporter, editor, DJ and salesman. He's also the co-author of three professional trade books for McGraw-Hill. An Air Force Vietnam vet who served on active duty in both the Air Force and the Army, he earned his Ph.D. at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Masters from Troy (State) University and undergraduate degree from Flagler College in St. Augustine. He's lived from coast to coast and, although he's been in the South for more than 20 years, his Southern-born wife says he'll never be "one of us."

  1. What I’d say is that we never have had “government by the people” yet. But, it is on the horizon and the people whom we elect as representatives, have seen it and they don’t like the prospect of being servants, rather than “in loco parentis” authorities. We the people are the enemy of established authorities. Efforts to redistrict and restrict the franchise are evidence.
    Cameras on every street corner, on the other hand, are just another variation of an industrial reliance on the public teat as a steady source or revenue from a market monopoly. Cameras are handy sources of information, after the fact, when there is some specific event to track. They are no good in low-light, rapidly changing situations. Partly, that’s because “appearances are deceptive,” regardless how closely or often we look.
    One-off events are impossible to anticipate and stop. On the other hand, abuse is something we can intercept and halt. Which is why I think the elder brother having been accused of spousal abuse is telling. Promoting him as a boxer probably didn’t help.

    The incidence of violent crime has decreased, but “accidents” continue to kill. The result, on the one hand, is agents of law enforcement worried about being unemployed, and on the other, careless behavior obviously being ignored. I’d say we need to reassure the one by redirecting their attention to the other. Yes, I know law enforcers are wary of “domestic situations” because they often get killed there. So, perhaps we need to make abuse a higher priority, a trigger for the removal of lethal weapons.
    Bringing cameras to a gun fight does not seem like a good strategy.

  2. This is a great topic that needs discussion, but this isn’t an essay or an article. It is poorly written and should be revised.

Comments are closed.