Why We Watch the Watchers
Digital surveillance is becoming increasingly prevalent in our lives. Despite the warnings of privacy rights advocates, many people are unaware of the extent that they are being tracked and recorded. Surveillance is often sold as a tool to prevent and apprehend lawbreakers — a noble goal. In this context, pushback against surveillance programs can be viewed by skeptics as a move to circumvent the rule of law. The argument being that if you aren’t a lawbreaker, why would you be concerned about enforcement tools?
Proponents of freedom and democracy, dating back to the U.S. founders, have cited privacy as a core requirement. For now, let’s assume that our freedom to dissent and voice our views can continue in a surveillance state. There are still risks that those in positions of power will abuse their access to data. Without checks and balances on how these systems are used by their operators, the risk of harm is real.
404 Media and other journalist watchdogs have documented and published numerous examples showing law enforcement’s abuse of these powerful tools. For example, they document how a police officer used automated license plate readers (ALPR) to stalk a woman. This stalking endangered both the woman herself and the public who happened to be on the road as the officer sped through traffic to pull over his victim.
This isn’t an isolated incident: https://www.404media.co/how-cops-use-flock-to-track-people-not-cars , https://www.404media.co/cops-keep-getting-arrested-for-using-flock-to-stalk-people . When accountability is not built into systems and culture, abuse is enabled.
If we are willing to make privacy tradeoffs in return for the benefits of surveillance tech, we need systems to protect us from misuse. Bidirectional surveillance is one possible solution. The “if you have nothing to hide” argument in favor of monitoring should apply to law enforcement as well. If these systems are being used legitimately, there should be no issue with transparent reporting on their use. If the users in these examples knew that their actions would become public record, it seems likely that it would have been a strong deterrent against their abuses.
There are, for sure, a few caveats and devils in the details. Certain investigations could be jeopardized by disclosing their existence. If the criminal mastermind knows his license plate is being tracked, he can alter his behavior to avoid law enforcement. Adding delays to disclosures and/or linking publication to case closure status seem like a straightforward solution. While license plate numbers are not directly about a person, they can be connected to a person. From a data classification perspective, a plate number is not linked to a person, but is linkable. Anonymizing plate numbers in the public data set solves this problem. Individuals could then request details about numbers that they have registered.
We all want to live in a safe society. Technology can and should play a role in how we ensure that rules are followed. We have to remember there is always a tradeoff. When only one side of the scale is visible, it will inevitably tip in favor of what can be seen. Only full visibility allows us to get the balance right.
