Read: Super Sad True Love Story, 3–43; Chapter Two of They Say, I Say
Blog post (200–300 words; due at 11:59 p.m. Monday, Sept. 7)
Prompt: Returning to our discussion of “Eye in the Sky” technology on Tuesday, write a brief summary of your position on the issue. Then, put yourself in the shoes of someone who would strongly disagree with you. Write a summary of your imagined opponent’s argument. What points would he or she make in response to yours?
(Make sure not to tell us which position is yours. Feel free to refer to Chapter Two of They Say, I Say to compose your summaries and to the exercise on p. 40, which this prompt is based on.)
Position 1: In discussions of cameras that can watch over an entire city at once, a controversial issue has been our privacy. While some argue that our privacy is being invaded, others contend that cameras are enhancing our security, therefore we are more protected. That is not to say that it is right for the government to be watching us all the time. One’s freedom is being taken away if we are constantly video taped. It can also be argued that crime will not diminish just because people are being watched. A crime can still happen, the only difference is that the person who engage in illegal activities “may” get caught. I say “may” because if the video cameras are not being watched 24/7 the person committing the crime may not even be caught! Overall, it is not a good idea to have persistent surveillance all over cities.
Position 2: In discussions of cameras that can watch over an entire city at once, a controversial issue has been our privacy. While some argue that our privacy is being invaded, others contend that cameras are enhancing our security, therefore we are more protected. Persistant surveillance will prevent misdeeds from happening in the first place. People are less likely to commit a crime if there is a higher likelihood that they get caught. Hence, people will think twice about engaging in an illegal act. This diminishing of crime will cause people to feel more safe around them. For this reason it makes sense to have surveillance all over cities.
In the podcast discussion of “Eye in the Sky” technology, the podcasters highlight the capability of this, once restricted to military usage, camera system that allows a team, now known as Persistent Surveillance Systems, to rewind through time in order to solve crimes and target enemy groups. By sending undetectable, small planes into the sky with cameras for hours at a time, they are able to capture the entirety of a city and can trace the actions of every moving being within its limits. This system retained the ability to capture suicide bombers in the Iraqi war and trace the bombers movement to terrorist headquarters, as well as to shut down drug cartels in Mexico following stakeouts. The ability to analyze this footage can help lockdown city shootings, as well as robberies and large scale drug operations within the US to assist in creating safer neighborhoods. Additionally, in order to create a moral standard in defense of privacy the team refuses to upgrade the quality of the zoom on their cameras in order to preserve close-up detail of everyday normal life. Essentially, they are only able to detect movement through specs of color, and can see much less than everyday security cameras set up in the corners of every store and restaurant across the nation. They are looking to target real, dangerous crime that allow people to live with greater comfort and peace of mind
However, there is a clear negative argument of security versus privacy towards this technology and a duality of the notion of comfort that has resisted the urge from city’s to agree to implement the system. Many people fear that the cameras are too invasive and will cause a sense of uneasiness as everyday, innocent citizens will be spied on and will feel too great a sense of control on their actions. Following incidents such as the NSA spying scandal through phones, there is a great lack of trust towards the government and larger-scale security agencies to be able to morally and justly handle these types of systems. Most people agree that bending the rules such as staying out a little past curfew and sneaking out at night are adventurous and enjoyable aspects of life that mold us into more complete human beings. The fear resides in the idea that this sort of technology will destroy the possibility of normal, free living, if only because of the knowledge that it is there, right above their heads, at all times.
Position 1: The “Eye in the Sky” technology allows one to spy on an entire population and stop crimes before they happen with advanced information. While some argue that basic privacy is being invaded others would say that this technology would keep more citizens safe. While it is true that having surveillance of everything would make it easier to catch criminals and stop crimes in action, the price of our privacy is not worth it. This technology would not stop crimes but just make it more easy and efficient to catch the assailant making it not as useful as imagined. But if the people who are using this technology have bad intentions or the camera information gets hacked, then all information about a person’s life can be made public destroying their privacy. Recently there have been data hacks all over the world and valuable information has been stolen from many nations. Having crucial information like this out in the open seems like a risky and possibly fatal idea. The risks that this technology brings up are not worth the potential benefits.
Position 2: The “Eye in the Sky” technology allows one to spy on an entire population and stop crimes before they happen with advanced information. While some argue that basic privacy is being invaded others would say that this technology would keep more citizens safe. While it is true that having surveillance of everything takes away privacy from peoples life, this surveillance can be used to catch almost all perpetrators of crime. Furthermore if you are not committing crimes, like any good citizen should, then you have nothing to fear from this new technology. Also the government is voted by the people, so the information is in safe hands protected by some of the best security in the world, making the chances of a hack very slim. Having this technology would bring all criminals to justice with only a few risks making it a potentially life saving tool.