July 6, 2007
Keep The Cameras Away
National Review Online: Lieberman's Support For U.K. Surveillance System Is Misguided
-
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has suggested the United States should establish a national network of surveillance cameras, much like the United Kingdom. (CBS)
-
Interactive U.K. Bomb Scares Failed car bombings in London and Scotland put United Kingdom on high alert.
-
Photo Essay London Bomb Scare Police thwart apparent terror attack, defusing car bomb in heart of city.
-
Who's Who Bungled Bombs Suspects At least eight held for failed car bombings in London and Glasgow, Scotland.
Senator Joe Lieberman, in the wake of last week's terrorist attack on Glasgow's airport and the foiled plots in London, has proposed expanding the use of surveillance cameras nationwide in the U.S. He cites the effective response of British law enforcement to the attacks, and believes that "we can do it without compromising anybody's real privacy." The senator's intentions are noble, but his proposal is badly flawed.
Surveillance cameras do have forensic value that can help authorities catch suspects after crimes have already been committed. The problem with this is that, for obvious reasons, suicide attackers tend not to worry about being caught afterwards. Antiterrorism strategies should be geared toward prevention; that is how lives are saved. The U.K. contains over 4.2 million surveillance cameras — one for every 14 people — and the Glasgow attackers still eluded detection until it was too late. The only reason there were no fatalities was the attackers' own amateurishness.
In a further blow to the perceived effectiveness of surveillance cameras, Clive Norris of the Sheffield University Centre for Criminological Research testified last year that researchers found that Glasgow crime did not decrease after cameras were installed city-wide. It actually increased by 9 percent.
The senator's proposal for stepping up surveillance has other problems besides ineffectiveness. Corruption could become an issue. This has already happened in a number of U.S. cities that have installed cameras at traffic intersections to deter drivers from running red lights.
Authorities in Lubbock, Texas, actually shortened the yellow lights at intersections where they had placed cameras. This increased the number of red light violations, which nicely padded the city's revenues. Worse, traffic accidents at those intersections increased. The cameras actually made drivers less safe. The problem wasn't fixed until an investigation by a local television station brought the matter to public attention. It is worth asking if cash-hungry governments can resist similar temptations with terrorism surveillance cameras.
There is also the threat of mission creep. Lubbock Mayor David Millers, who supports traffic cameras for safety reasons, acknowledged as such when he said "it's also about the generation of revenue." It would be naïve to believe that cameras set up solely for terrorism prevention would not also soon be used for other purposes.
Law enforcement would scratch and claw to use the cameras for more general surveillance. This has happened before, and it will happen again. To cite an example of one anti-terrorism tool that has already been co-opted for other purposes, provisions in the Patriot Act have been used in everything from drug cases to prosecuting organized crime. This ties directly into the privacy concerns that Sen. Lieberman believes would not be compromised.
U.K. residents are routinely filmed by as many as 300 cameras in a single day. Cameras are everywhere from public squares to public bathrooms. It is absurd to believe that the U.K. model that Sen. Lieberman wants to emulate does not violate privacy.
A policy should be judged by its costs and its benefits. A national network of terrorism surveillance cameras would benefit investigators after an attack. But the cost is too large to justify, especially since the cameras would not actually prevent attacks. The threats of corruption and mission creep coupled with serious privacy concerns tip the cost-benefit scale against the cameras. And this leaves aside the millions of dollars it would require to install and operate the cameras. Sen. Lieberman should reconsider his position.
By Jim Harper
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
 | America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
More From Opinion
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Live dirt poor
Worry about where their next meal is
Live on 1 meal aday
A poor person's meal at that
Sleep on the floor
Wear clothe of the poor
live in poor person's housing
take mass transit
Have a low cost pc
They be surely whining
Some need that.
They be grateful to have the basics
People live that poor.
I find it rather amazing that those in power want to video us, yet they get to stay off camera...
Again, let's put cameras in every government office and record their every move, conversation, and emails...
As poor children in foster care there was a programme about the future in 67 to 69 hosted by Walter Cronkite. Us kids would talk about it. We could not figure that out. It was pre computer. We never heard of computer. We did talk about flying cars,that never happened. Now it is here. Surely not what we yakked about. 1984 The book That guy had to be dreaming when he wrote was my thinking years ago. I just laughed then. NAH. Never happen. Back then people talked about the book.Well,it slowly is.
They tap our phones.
They read our email.
They read our mail.
They want to know what books we check out of the library.
They want to know what websites we visit.
They want access to our bank records.
Now they want us on camera all the time and everywhere.
All so that they can be large and in charge all the time while "saving" us from "terrists".
America. Land of the free and home of the brave.
Yeah. Sure. Uh-huh. You betcha, ace.
George Orwell was dead on the money. He just was a little off on the timetable.
Posted by random_radar
Random, four legs good, two legs better....
Isn't that the state where they used to have to write "for prevention of disease only" in big purple letters on condoms? Maybe they should make a real big condom for Joe Lieberman, shove it over his head, and film him on a surveillance camera.
I truly don't understand what the big deal is about having cameras all over the place. It would make everyone think twice before they make fools of themselves trying rob someone, or commit some kind fo vandalism, or harm other people.
I would feel much more secure that way. Why wouldn't anybody else feel the same way?
That way we MIGHT catch them actually doing their job.
- by marcodele July 6, 2007 5:06 PM EDT
- I think Lieberman should keep his Orwellian vision for Americans to himself. "Badly flawed" is a good way to describe anything Lieberman.
- Reply to this comment
See all 18 Comments