Americans should be aware of the rules governing this type
of surveillance in their jurisdiction, suggests the New York Times. It’s one thing to be identified by the
police once you’re detained; it’s another for the police to be able to identify
you at a distance without having to say a word to you.
This use of facial recognition could potentially have a
stifling effect on First Amendment-protected activity such as protests.
Citizens may be less willing to take part if they think the police are able to
catalog their participation and see where else they’ve appeared in public.
The same concern applies to drones, which, although still
comparatively rare, will also be a regular part of police departments’ tool
kits soon. The New York Police Department has in the past strongly resisted
calls for information about its drone
records.
Americans care about this. Analysis of
online behavior suggests, unsurprisingly, that some changed their
online search behavior after Edward Snowden’s revelations that the National
Security Agency had engaged in widespread internet surveillance.
The relationship between security and liberty is often
described as a balancing act. This act can’t take place if we’re not informed
about the technology used to safeguard our security.
That’s why, when it comes to surveillance technology, the
American people should demand to know whether the police are spying on them. At
the moment, those who are suspected of being Muslim extremists are prime
targets, and innocent people caught in this effort face immediate concerns. In
the past, Communists, civil rights leaders, feminists, Quakers, folk singers,
war protesters and others have been on the receiving end of law enforcement
surveillance.
No one knows who the next target will be. What we do know is
that it’s difficult to put surveillance equipment back in the box it came from.
To read more CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment