“Eye in the Sky” — Privacy v. Security
I was fascinated this week by a RadioLab episode called “Eye in the Sky” about the use of “Persistent Surveillance Systems” in a few cities around the country, like Baltimore and Dayton. Basically this new technology is being used by police to capture continual aerial images of cities. They use it to solve crimes by backtracking the footage and watching criminals, tracking them to their locations.
Cool, right?
But there are certain ones of us in America who feel very strongly in a right to privacy. I get it, the 4th amendment guarantees a protection against unreasonable search and seizure, for all to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” and this right is voiced EVERY time a new technology emerges offering more security at the expense of privacy.
But RadioLab delved into this issue, inciting a security v. privacy debate, with hardly any ethical reasoning at all.
What are the goods associated with a 44 mega-pixel camera watching criminals from the clouds? What are the dangers? Are there sufficient safeguards available to minimize the danger enough to justify the goods?
This is an ethical question because it is a values question. It’s also a legal question, because we’re dealing with the Constitution, government policies, and policing. And it’s also a bioethics question because this technology extends the capability of the human eye to watch other bodies and follow them.
But ultimately, at least the way RadioLab framed it, this is a values question.
What are the goods?
- dramatic increase in ability to solve crimes
- decrease in crime overall
- ability to bust highly organized crime rings, etc.
What are the dangers?
- if used the wrong way, decrease in privacy and security (a slippery slope argument)
- government has potential access to information about our whereabouts and actions (?) — may be the first step down a dangerous road where the government knows too much about us (also slippery slope)
- one day the technology may be good enough to see faces instead of moving dots, further invading privacy (you guessed it, slippery slope)
What are the safeguards against the dangers?
- the laws, including the 4th amendment. This technology does not currently violate anything in the Constitution. The laws against invasion of privacy prevent it from spinning out of control.
- the fact that this technology is only used retroactively (as in, a crime is committed and THEN the police go back and watch the footage) means there is no one watching your every move. In fact, no one watches you at all unless you commit or are the victim of a crime.
Overall it is quite clear the ability to solve and reduce crime justifies the possible drawbacks of this system. As long as surveillance technology isn’t being used to invade personal property (“houses, papers, and effects”) without a warrant, or manipulate our actions in any way, it’s perfectly legal. It’s an opportunity to create a more efficient and just policing system.