I'm on a neighborhood listserv, which sounds like a good thing in theory -- keep up with what's going on around me and whatnot -- but might not be such a good thing in practice. For one thing, the amount of messages to read is annoying. (I fiddled with the settings, so that I only get one actual email each day, but it often contains ten or more messages.) For another thing, it often turns into nothing other than a crime alert, and that's what I'm unsure of. Is that good or bad? I want to be aware if there is a major crime spree going on in the neighborhood, but do I really need to hear everybody's individual tale about how their car was broken into? Is that helpful or is it just alarmist? I don't know. (And try reading about crime and then staying up late listening to a podcast on the Charles Manson murders. You're jumping out of your seat at the smallest creek or bump.)
Thankfully the crime in my neighborhood is mostly nonviolent, and we've experienced very little of it. A few years ago, my in-laws' car was broken into, but that's it. Now we don't keep anything of value in our car, except the car seats, which are actually quite expensive (one of them is at least), but, I imagine, they aren't great targets for potential thieves. They take a few minutes to unhook and pull out of the car, and they are relatively heavy and cumbersome -- they aren't amendable to smash and grab. Also, I like to think there is honor among thieves and that kids' stuff is off limits. But that's probably just romantic thinking on my part. If somebody is low enough to break into your car and take, say, your purse, they probably would take your car seat too if it was worth their while.
Having your car broken into is concerning, but it's not downright frightening like the thought of having your house burglarized. We've never seen any signs of anybody trying to break into our house, but it does happen in my neighborhood. I think (hope) we'll be OK, because 1) despite the individual cases that people put up on the listserv, our neighborhood is still pretty safe -- the vast majority of people aren't getting burglarized and never will (we have packages delivered almost everyday, and nobody has so much as stolen a package off our porch); 2) we have a good alarm system; 3) we're on a major road and our backyard is not accessible by a side street or an alley. That last one seems to be key, as in every case on the listserv, the criminals accessed the back door of the house through an alley.
One reason the listserv definitely is good, however, is because it brings together neighbors, so that they can coordinate possible solutions. For example, people are talking about buying security cameras and aiming them strategically, so that they cover most the alleys, which I think is a great idea. I'm a pro security camera guy. I've done almost a complete 180 on them from where I used to be; whereas before I found them extremely distasteful and intrusive, now I'm OK with the idea of every public area being recorded at all times. I'm aware of the downside -- the privacy concerns -- but I think the upside far outweighs this.
We actually have the technology to do this -- as a society, I mean. You can put a camera in the air and have it record an entire city all day. Once the footage is captured, the technology is so good that it can zoom in on any part of the city and see what is going on. You can only see broad shapes, but that is often sufficient. For example, if somebody broke into a house, you could find the house at the time of the robbery, and see what was going on outside the house. If there was a get-away car, you could follow it to see where it went. I learned all about this on a podcast, but I can't remember which one. Ah ... it was Radiolab. I recommend giving it a listen; it was a good episode. Actually, they're all pretty good. It's a good program. I could go without all the noises and sound effects -- it's a bit overproduced at times -- but that's a small nit.
Anyway, I think the main reason people don't like security cameras is because a) it feels kind of creepy to know you're being recorded at all times; b) they are worried that the government is going to turn into Big Brother. On a), I think we just need to get used to this. The technology is there, and it isn't going away. Even if it's not an "eye in the sky," it's security footage from a residence or a business or a passer-by with an iPhone. Being that we all carry around with us little cameras pretty everywhere we go, we should probably just behave as if somebody is filming us all the time.
On b), I think this fear is based,literally, on fiction. The term Big Brother is from a fictitious novel. I think books like 1984 are so good and so powerful that we collectively forget that they are complete make-believe. And basing your life philosophies on make-believe is a great way to lose touch with reality and look like a fool. (See examples here and here and here.) I mean, I love George Orwell, but what if he just got it wrong? He wasn't a seer; 1984 isn't a prophecy (although Animal Farm seems to get truer and truer each election cycle). Yes, things like the NSA illegally spying on citizens are concerning, but really that's still a far cry from Big Brother. And on the flip side, what about the good that all this surveillance can do? It seems to me technology is being used not so that the government can oppress the people, but so that people can more effectively police themselves and in many cases, police the government. Think about it -- what's the hottest topics right now in policing? Bodycams.
The key, in my view, is not whether or not we should exploit surveillance technology, but rather who has access to the footage. If we all have access to it -- if, for example, anybody can go online and watch footage of any public place at any given time -- and we all know that anybody can do this, then why is this a bad thing? Won't it just make us all safer and more accountable? Or at the very least, won't it be better than the alternative, which is that this technology is out there and is being deployed in an ad-hoc manner of nebulous legality. It seems to the answer is clearly yes.
But, I dunno, maybe I'm way off on this, and if we don't limit surveillance soon, it's only a matter of time before the world becomes doubleplusungood, and I'm in Room 101, sleep deprived and defeated, while the Octonauts song "Creature Report" torments me on endless loop in the background... Oh wait, that's my life now.
Until next time...
Thankfully the crime in my neighborhood is mostly nonviolent, and we've experienced very little of it. A few years ago, my in-laws' car was broken into, but that's it. Now we don't keep anything of value in our car, except the car seats, which are actually quite expensive (one of them is at least), but, I imagine, they aren't great targets for potential thieves. They take a few minutes to unhook and pull out of the car, and they are relatively heavy and cumbersome -- they aren't amendable to smash and grab. Also, I like to think there is honor among thieves and that kids' stuff is off limits. But that's probably just romantic thinking on my part. If somebody is low enough to break into your car and take, say, your purse, they probably would take your car seat too if it was worth their while.
Having your car broken into is concerning, but it's not downright frightening like the thought of having your house burglarized. We've never seen any signs of anybody trying to break into our house, but it does happen in my neighborhood. I think (hope) we'll be OK, because 1) despite the individual cases that people put up on the listserv, our neighborhood is still pretty safe -- the vast majority of people aren't getting burglarized and never will (we have packages delivered almost everyday, and nobody has so much as stolen a package off our porch); 2) we have a good alarm system; 3) we're on a major road and our backyard is not accessible by a side street or an alley. That last one seems to be key, as in every case on the listserv, the criminals accessed the back door of the house through an alley.
One reason the listserv definitely is good, however, is because it brings together neighbors, so that they can coordinate possible solutions. For example, people are talking about buying security cameras and aiming them strategically, so that they cover most the alleys, which I think is a great idea. I'm a pro security camera guy. I've done almost a complete 180 on them from where I used to be; whereas before I found them extremely distasteful and intrusive, now I'm OK with the idea of every public area being recorded at all times. I'm aware of the downside -- the privacy concerns -- but I think the upside far outweighs this.
We actually have the technology to do this -- as a society, I mean. You can put a camera in the air and have it record an entire city all day. Once the footage is captured, the technology is so good that it can zoom in on any part of the city and see what is going on. You can only see broad shapes, but that is often sufficient. For example, if somebody broke into a house, you could find the house at the time of the robbery, and see what was going on outside the house. If there was a get-away car, you could follow it to see where it went. I learned all about this on a podcast, but I can't remember which one. Ah ... it was Radiolab. I recommend giving it a listen; it was a good episode. Actually, they're all pretty good. It's a good program. I could go without all the noises and sound effects -- it's a bit overproduced at times -- but that's a small nit.
Anyway, I think the main reason people don't like security cameras is because a) it feels kind of creepy to know you're being recorded at all times; b) they are worried that the government is going to turn into Big Brother. On a), I think we just need to get used to this. The technology is there, and it isn't going away. Even if it's not an "eye in the sky," it's security footage from a residence or a business or a passer-by with an iPhone. Being that we all carry around with us little cameras pretty everywhere we go, we should probably just behave as if somebody is filming us all the time.
On b), I think this fear is based,literally, on fiction. The term Big Brother is from a fictitious novel. I think books like 1984 are so good and so powerful that we collectively forget that they are complete make-believe. And basing your life philosophies on make-believe is a great way to lose touch with reality and look like a fool. (See examples here and here and here.) I mean, I love George Orwell, but what if he just got it wrong? He wasn't a seer; 1984 isn't a prophecy (although Animal Farm seems to get truer and truer each election cycle). Yes, things like the NSA illegally spying on citizens are concerning, but really that's still a far cry from Big Brother. And on the flip side, what about the good that all this surveillance can do? It seems to me technology is being used not so that the government can oppress the people, but so that people can more effectively police themselves and in many cases, police the government. Think about it -- what's the hottest topics right now in policing? Bodycams.
The key, in my view, is not whether or not we should exploit surveillance technology, but rather who has access to the footage. If we all have access to it -- if, for example, anybody can go online and watch footage of any public place at any given time -- and we all know that anybody can do this, then why is this a bad thing? Won't it just make us all safer and more accountable? Or at the very least, won't it be better than the alternative, which is that this technology is out there and is being deployed in an ad-hoc manner of nebulous legality. It seems to the answer is clearly yes.
But, I dunno, maybe I'm way off on this, and if we don't limit surveillance soon, it's only a matter of time before the world becomes doubleplusungood, and I'm in Room 101, sleep deprived and defeated, while the Octonauts song "Creature Report" torments me on endless loop in the background... Oh wait, that's my life now.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment