ABAJ: Surveillance footage enters slapstick comedy TV genre, and that could be dangerous, lawyer says

ABAJ: Surveillance footage enters slapstick comedy TV genre, and that could be dangerous, lawyer says by Adam Banner. About halfway in:

The rise of surveillance cameras and the myth of ‘passive’ surveillance

After all, why would we invite so much scrutiny into our homes when we have already agreed, or at least acquiesced to, near constant surveillance outside of them?

Take license plate readers, including systems operated by companies like Flock Safety, for example. These cameras, which capture vehicles and license plates in real time, promise safety through a faulty premise: They don’t watch people, they just collect data. I can assure you, while that may be the intention, it’s far from the application.

The proliferation of these systems raises a familiar constitutional question dressed up in modern tech language: At what point does convenience become consent, and when does consent become coercion?

I can’t even begin to count how many cases I’ve had over the last few years that start with law enforcement questioning a motorist about their recent travel history, only to end with an arrest once the relevant tracking information reveals an inconsistency. Many of those situations happen while agents access camera databases in real time during “consensual conversations” with motorists, who are ordered into law enforcement vehicles against their will after a minor traffic infraction.

For those who think that Flock Safety and others are solely focused on insurance enforcement or some other less intrusive function, just look at Flock Safety’s website. The company’s homepage is replete with calls to action far beyond remedial enforcement measures. With headings such as, “Stop Crime in Real Time,” “Beat the Clock, Every Call” and “Solving More Homicides,” it’s clear that the focus is assisting all government investigations in any way possible.

To be fair, while Neighborhood Watch doesn’t scream “government overreach,” it does at least whisper it if you’re willing to listen. After all, the implication is obvious. The series documents how society continues to grant immunity—legal, moral and psychological—to systems designed to record our day-to-day existence.

Once installed and normalized, though, these tools rapidly move from optional safeguard to expected infrastructure. Once that happens, questioning them starts to sound suspicious to the uninformed or the uninvested, almost like a healthy dose of skepticism is shamed into opposing safety itself.

When we stop questioning the things that threaten our freedom, though, we acquiesce to invisible chains.

This entry was posted in Surveillance technology. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.