Loss of Privacy

Increasing numbers of ‘terror suspects’ are being arrested on the basis of online and CCTV surveillance data. Authorities claim they act in the public interest, but does this intense surveillance keep us safer?

“I woke up to pounding on my door”, says Andrej Holm, a sociologist from the Humboldt University. In what felt like a scene from a movie, he was taken from his Berlin home by armed men after a systematic monitoring of his academic research deemed him the probable leader of a militant group. After 30 days in solitary confinement, he was released without charges. Across Western Europe and the USA, surveillance of civilians has become a major business. With one camera for every 14 people in London and drones being used by police to track individuals, the threat of living in a Big Brother state is becoming a reality. At an annual conference of hackers, keynote speaker Jacob Appelbaum asserts, “to be free of suspicion is the most important right to be truly free”. But with most people having a limited understanding of this world of cyber surveillance and how to protect ourselves, are our basic freedoms already being lost?

Source.

From NBC News:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are already government closed-circuit TV systems in cities like Boston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of both the House Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, said the nation needs even more video cameras in public places.

“They’re a great law enforcement method and device,” the congressman told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell the day after the bombing. “It keeps us ahead of the terrorists who are constantly trying to kill us.”

Except these great law enforcement methods and devices didn’t keep anyone ahead of terrorists last week in Boston.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the Washington Post Friday that the Boston bombings are “Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield,” and that it would have been “nice to have a drone up there” to help track the suspects, brothers Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

How can you track suspects with a drone when 1) you didn’t even know they were suspects or what they were up to and 2) didn’t actually find them with drones, they came out and found the police. No amount of cameras is going to prevent crime from occurring. It didn’t during the London riots of 2011 nor did it stop the 7/7 bombings and it’s not going to help in preventing a terrorist attack anywhere in the United States.

CCTV undermines everyone’s privacy, while diverting resources from approaches that have a much higher impact on reducing crime and improving public safety, or is used by lazy officials as a way to placate the public who want something done to make their neighborhood safer.

Sadly, after the events of Boston, Americans will likely surrender more freedoms so that they can “feel” a little bit safer instead of investing money in more officers that can actually help prevent crime.

While filming a routine stop and search of her boyfriend on the London Underground, Gemma suddenly found herself detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest.

Act of Terror tells the story of her fight to bring the police to justice and prevent this happening to anyone else, ever again.

Official Website.

It is easy to forget about the 2005 Terrorism Act and its damaging effect on civil liberties and human rights.  Act Of Terror puts the spotlight back on this murky law, and demands that we keep vigilant in the face of ever increasing state power.

An animated journey through the labyrinthine world of English Justice, the sinister caveats of Terrorism legislation, and the shocking cronyism of the police complaints system, Act Of Terror is about strength in the face of powerlessness and finding the courage to fight back.

Act of Terror from Fat Rat Films on Vimeo.

With camera technology increasing while prices decrease, the use of surveillance cameras seems ubiquitous in larger cities like Boston and New York City. With the large amount of people in Boston for the marathon taking photos, law enforcement were able to use private and public photos to find the bombers and piece together what happened. While this is a great thing, there are still many questions that need to be asked about the dangers of all the time surveillance.

privacy advocates remain concerned about pervasive, and potentially invasive, surveillance technology.

Government use of surveillance technology has expanded considerably in the past decade, amid advances in computing as well as government spending on homeland security. Such technology includes a high density of cameras in some urban centers, traffic cameras along highways, and well as the use of advanced technology such as facial recognition in airports.

Some privacy advocates said the ability of investigators to track the suspects within a matter of days demonstrates that more invasive surveillance isn’t needed. “It’s one thing to have private closed-circuit cameras and look at feeds after the fact,” said Alan Butler, a lawyer with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It’s very different if you’re talking about systems of cameras identifying and tracking people over time, all the time. Especially if you couple that with facial recognition and license-plate readers and databases.”

Source.

The Discovery Channel is currently running a documentary claiming that America’s northern border with Canada is under constant siege. Here are two preview clips of the show.

From the Daily News:

Having set the bar at imminent danger from terrorists, however, the show then dials back into a rather familiar and routine examination of what very likely are the daily concerns of every security checkpoint in the world.

Specifically, “Under Siege” spends much of its hour following security agents as they track a woman they suspect is abetting drug smugglers.

Watching how they watch her is instructive, but frankly not all that interesting — a point the show seems to sense, since it works to ratchet up the drama with stirring music and ominous narration.

The show notes, correctly, that someone smuggling drugs could almost as easily be smuggling weapons, and that our ability to intercept such people is vital to our security.

Point taken, as is the point about not assuming our northern border is fine because the only people on the other side of it are Canadians. “Under Siege” just doesn’t advance the case much beyond the declaration it makes in the first three minutes.