The
Challenge of an Open Society by David Brin
argues that there are two types of cities that are bound to happen with in the
next 20 years. Both of these
cities include tiny cameras over viewing everywhere in town. However, the primary difference between
these two places is who has the authority to view the videotapes, police or
citizens? The advantage from these
cameras is that street crime has nearly vanished. Although this is a great benefit for all of the citizens, it
forces them to give up their privacy.
Privacy is about self-possession, autonomy, and integrity (Garfinkel, p.
323). People who live in these
types of cities can no longer regulate what they wish others to see. Their lives will be watched whenever
they go outside of their house.
The lack of control is a breach in human desire.
So the question
now becomes, which is more important, privacy or safety? According to Jean Thomas, the homeowner
victim, safety is the most important.
She and her husband set up a video home surveillance system to protect
their house from yet another burglary.
The following YouTube video shows how she caught the robbers.
Florida woman watches house being robbed via internet. (1 minute: 29 seconds)
As
seen in the video, Jean Thomas was at work and logged onto her house’s live
video camera feed to find her house being robbed. She saw live two men
breaking in and going through different rooms seeking valuable items. As soon as she saw the men she called
911 to have police dispatched. “The video allowed her and the police to act
swiftly” (1:11). Soon after her
call, the officers showed up and caught the robbers. Because of this live video camera, Jean did not miss her
Wii, new flat screen television, or a safe full of expensive items.
This
is similar to King’s Lynn crime reduction discussed in The Challenge of an
Open Society. Similar to one of the cities Brin discusses, King’s Lynn
installed video cameras in “trouble spots” in an attempt to reduce the crime
rate. King’s Lynn fall in crime rate followed in suit
to the future cities. The YouTube
video I displayed furthers this argument because we can see a clear example of
how beneficial cameras can be.
Although as Brin suggests, with this type of surveillance, comes
intrusion. If people are on camera
they are constantly going to be scrutinized by viewers and held
accountable. As Brin argues in
this article, people expect accountability from others but want privacy for
themselves. Applying this to the
YouTube video, Jean Thomas could be putting herself in unknown danger by having
her house under live surveillance.
Someone could hack into her website account and then watch her video
feed while she is at home, compromising not only her privacy, but her and her
husbands’ safety.
With new
technology, comes a new hacker
No comments:
Post a Comment