Re: IP Security Cameras

[Kevin Shalla <kshalla () UIC EDU>]

I'm not sure this is the right forum for this, but I'll give it a go
anyway, since we are in a position to at least slightly influence the
use of security cameras and other privacy-reducing technology.

Does anyone think we're going too far in the installation of
cameras?  While I understand that there are few if any laws
preventing this sort of thing, do we really want to encourage or at
least condone expanding this technology which decreases privacy?  In
the old days (200 years ago), while it was certainly legal (as I
believe it still is) to follow someone around all day in public
spaces and take notes on everywhere he goes and everything he does
and everyone he talks to, it was far too expensive, and so besides
the fourth amendment, laws preventing this collection of data weren't
really necessary to protect privacy.

I would say that we're now not too far away from a time when
everyone's movements can be tracked, through purchases, RFID chips,
toll collection devices, cell-phones, public-space cameras (is audio
being recorded too?), facial recognition technology and so on.  It
seems like the common American responds with "What have I got to
hide?", and so we continue like sheep marching down the path of
increased surveillance, much to the delight of governments and
corporations.  What made our country great was the spirit of  "I
disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death to uphold
your right to say it".  I believe that increased surveillance will
tend to limit what people say, do, and discuss, and not increase
security, but decrease it!  Those with access to the surveillance
data can use it for the benefit of society, but it is certainly not
restricted to that.  I believe it is highly likely that criminals and
governments will also use it for their own ends.

Is it time to introduce a constitutional amendment or law protecting
US residents from this collection of data?  Would it be possible to
introduce such a legal protection while huge corporate and
governmental interests are enjoying the freedoms allowed without this
protection?  Is there enough significant interest in privacy by
influential people to make a stand?