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.

The Eye in the Sky technology was developed in order to stop crime and increase security. While some might insist this is a violation of the patriot act, it cannot be denied that the ease with which criminals can be followed from crime scenes or drug lords can be tracked to their headquarters is invaluable information. Most US citizens who insist they are doing nothing wrong have nothing to hide, and therefore no reason to not be in favor of the Eye in the Sky.

However, it is easy to reject this technology on the basis that it gives the government too much power and removes all privacy from everyday life. Many United States citizens, for example, worry that Big Brother will emerge from the government’s innocent “security amplification” and our country will slowly become George Orwell’s 1984 dystopia. This technology is very easy to misuse and would yield catastrophic results, should the data fall into the wrong hands. It is easy for As Edward Snowdin once said, “arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

FIRST POSITION:
In the Radio Lab podcast “Eye in the Sky,” surveillance technology is the topic in spotlight. Surveillance technology can detect crime by taking simultaneous pictures that can cover up to twenty-five miles of the territory. Specifically, the ability that the inventor and creator of this surveillance technology Ross McNutt has for zooming the lenses of the twelve different cameras has provided an entry for modern police daily vigilance. Up in the sky, a helicopter caries twelve different cameras that as perpetually taking pictures. Each shooting of the twelve cameras combine to form one single picture. By reviewing the pictures from previous hours and present hours, the police get to “travel in time” to detect who did a crime, at what time, and where. For this reason, the benefits of the surveillance technology are innumerable. “Steep drops in crime” have been inferred and the properties “rise in value,” which plays as a cause and effect. Ross McNutt said it himself, “I want them to be worried that we’re watching.”

SECOND POSITION:
The creators and upholders of surveillance technology celebrate the fact that crime will be detected and attacked in a matter of minutes rather than in a few days or even never. They adhere to the ideology that “rising property values” and “steep drops on crime” are good enough excuses to have the privacy of innocent citizens be affected. The tendency to live a fast life obligates the police to have to answer a case in a matter of minutes, yet everyone is aware that such ideal world is not “real.” No matter if the people’s faces cannot be seen in detail from a distance, the fact of having an aircraft above the blue sky recording your everyday movement does not seem humane. Humanity by itself is not the only source of juggle, but also the economy. Having this surveillance technology has the cost of $6,000 every hour that the twelve cameras are taking pictures. If the purpose of surveillance technology is to aid the human race, their best alternative is not to destroy what makes humans be humans: their spontaneity and right to privacy.

In one year alone 480 million dollars has been lost through part one crimes, which are limited to murder, rape, and assault.  These crimes could be decreased by 30-40 percent if the Project Angelfire system is implemented according to Ross McNutt, the project’s creator.  It has the power to remove thousands of criminals off the street and increase security in our everyday lives.  Through a high-powered camera strapped to the bottom of a plane, law enforcement would have access to snapshots taken every second.  Entire crime organizations could be taken off the streets by analyzing the connections and associations in the constant surveillance.  Many believe that this system takes away our basic right to privacy, but limits and regulations could be put in place to ensure basic privacy while still allowing major crimes to be halted within hours.  This technology would allow people to go about their daily lives without having to constantly worry about the crimes constantly occurring around them, giving them a peace of mind.

Technology of this magnitude is a danger to our basic right of privacy.  The constant access to our daily lives leaves too much up in air in terms of personal safety.  This level of clearance, power given to the government is a disaster waiting to strike, and with a right as basic as our personal privacy this just cannot be trusted in their hands.  With more and more technological advances, hackers could potentially have access to everything we as a society deem precious.  This system would potentially open the door for many more to whittle away at our rights little by little.  Although many crimes could be solved, this sacrifice of our privacy brings even more issues that are simply not worth it.

Many issues in our society have required the sacrifice of privacy for security. This debate is an important one that accompanies new technology, more specifically, Project Angel Fire. Project Angel Fire is a surveillance system that started during the Iraq War that attaches cameras on the belly of airplanes that allows the viewer to go back and track crimes and thus, dispatch police officers to the exact spot. This system can revolutionize crime catching in major cities such as Dayton, Ohio and New York City. While many fear the sacrifice of privacy, this system can change the way we fight crime outweighs the fear the public has that the government will betray the level of trust. This system has already caught the man in charge of fifteen-hundred crimes in Juarez, Mexico and could decrease crime by 30-40% in Dayton, Ohio. While it is true that the cameras record a ton of information, it is mostly non-invasive and is not watched unless given a reason. If put in place across the United States, the police could use this technology advantageously to better protect our society.

While the Project Angel Fire technology can help solve crimes in American cities, it comes at the sacrifice of our privacy and freedom. While the creators of this technology have stated that they will not use the technology to zoom in on pictures or analyze images without reason, who is to say that the government will not in the future? It is possible the government is not to be trusted with this power and information. All of our movements will be recorded and the information is out there for them to analyze at their will. Besides the fact that we will have no autonomy over ourselves, police should be out on the streets, making personal relationships and connections with the public. This technology would decrease these important connections. Only in dramatic times where fear is over encompassing will the public sacrifice their autonomy. Until then, the government must find other ways to better protect our society and fix crime in major cities.

The podcast “Eye in the Sky” introduces audiences a new technology called Project Angel Fire, a surveillance system that enables the police to monitor and track down every crime that happens in a city, and arouses the conflict between safety and privacy.  Some people suggest that implementing this system can conspicuously help the police arrest criminals; whereas others argue that this system is an intolerable invasion to their privacy.  However, there is one significant issue that both sides have not addressed yet.  The major problem that this surveillance system might bring is not the violation of privacy but the excessive power it has granted for the government.  Coincidentally, George Orwell demonstrated how excessive power can foster dictatorship and thus making the society dystopian through his novel 1984.  In that novel, the government, as known as “The Big Brother”, monitors civilians through a surveillance system and punishes people for making “improper” statements such as complaining about the government.  People nowadays do not get punished for grumbling not only because of freedom of speech but also because the government is not able to track what people has said.  Nevertheless, this surveillance system offers the government a chance to dominate the whole country.  It is not essentially true that the government will execute absolutism after implementing this system, but this undue power creates a potential risk and indirectly endangers the society.  As a result, people should consider more about implementing this system instead of making an impulsive decision.

In his reflection upon “Eye in the Sky”, he argues that people should not implement this surveillance system because of the potential risk it creates regardless of its efficiency on solving crimes and keeping the city in order.  All of his statements are based on the theory that he keeps reaffirming: excessive power will develop dictatorship.  He does not deny that “It is not essentially true that the government will execute absolutism after implementing this system”.  However, he still insists that the lurking danger people will risk after implementing this system is way more important than the benefit that the system will bring to the society.  His comments are irrational since it is not likely that the system will cultivate dictatorship.  First of all, this society is built based on capitalism.  Unlike the dominating political party in 1984, none of the parties in USA that can rule the country.  In addition, it is clearly stated in the podcast that this system cannot track individuals vividly, thus contradicting his comment about “track[ing] what people has said”. Last but not least, even though there is still a minor possibility that the government will execute absolutism after implementing the system, the benefits that the system brings people surpass the potential risk.  People should worry about their lives in the moment instead of in the future.  As a result, the government should implement this system and make the society a better place.

The “Eye in the Sky” podcast talks about surveillance technology that could be useful in solving heinous crimes and protecting our citizens. This surveillance technology consists of a small plane with cameras connected to the bottom of the plane. Originally designed to solve larger-scale military incidences, this technology can be beneficial because it can survey large areas at a time. This technology has been brought to America to help solve crimes here, and is generally non-invasive, as the images collected are not analyzed unless a crime is committed. This means this technology would almost be less intrusive than normal surveillance cameras on street corners. Also, the images collected from almost two miles up are low resolution to small objects, so the police are cannot track us individually. This technology would be helpful in large-scale crimes, such as gang activity, robbery, and murder.

The podcast also highlights people’s hesitance toward this technology. Those opposed to these technologies explain that this technology is not really needed because of lack of government trust and lack of evidence to back up its effectiveness. Many people believe that authorities, the government, or the people behind this technology could abuse the power that comes with this high level of surveillance. Would they be spying on our everyday lives? This technology makes people uncomfortable. Also, the technology has some limitations; it would not be as effective in cities where there are large underground transportation systems or areas where there is a lot of tree cover. These naysayers also believe that if someone really wants to commit a crime, this will not completely deter them and they will find better ways of covering their crimes, or just do it anyway. Overall, many people believe this technology could be beneficial in solving serious crimes, however many also believe it oversteps the boundaries of personal security.

Project Angel Fire, a program from the Iraq War, is being brought to the Homefront in the form of Persistent Surveillance Systems. Through this company, small planes equipped with cameras view an entire city and record everything that occurs in snapshots that can then be used by the police to track down criminals. Though several policemen and military veterans attest to the usefulness of the programs, it is suggested that the technology is not used to monitor our own citizens due to the issues surrounding individual privacy. Though there is no direct right to privacy in the Constitution, the act of recording a person’s entire life sets a steep precedent from which a country cannot recover. American citizens have already condemned the government for its daily intervention in the infamous NSA scandal, so having an official stance of viewing the personal lives of individuals would be as just as invasive strategy as before.

Ross McNutt’s system of surveillance, a small plane outfitted with a camera, used in the Iraq War to catch bombers is now being used in America by police to solve crimes. Though some individuals may voice concern for personal privacy, the benefits of the program not only outweigh the costs, but are focused to the point that privacy is not being invaded upon. First, the police have already been able to use the cameras to solve crimes from robbery to homicide. The sheer presence of this technology is predicted to reduce the crime rate in Dayton, Ohio by 30%. And, as this information is streamlined through the company at the request of the police, the personal lives of individuals are not under observation; the acts of criminals are being investigated by the system. The safety produced by the program already shows promising benefits, ones that can be effective across the nation.

Presented by RADIOLAB, “Eye in the Sky”(a Podcast article) exposes the issue of surveillance as perceived by different populations. While some may protest that surveillance systems can infringe upon the privacy rights of the American citizenry, others may acclaim the use of modern surveillance as necessary toward the reduction of crime, especially in zones afflicted by crime such as Dayton, Ohio and Juarez, Mexico.

In “Eye in the Sky”, a group of citizens speaks against the implementation of a surveillance system capable of tracking object and human movement through a set of cameras implemented on the bottom surface of a police helicopter. This group emphasizes that this powerful surveillance method can be detrimental to the privacy of an individual within his or her property. Today, in the Digital Age, businesses, organizations, and individuals rely on the use of technological devices such as smartphones to communicate with others, complete tasks, make monetary transactions but also to assess crime and healthcare needs. In light of growing technological improvements, however, it is valid to fear that a device or a widely implemented surveillance system may expose one’s identity, whereabouts, and personal communications.

The Podcast article also puts light upon situations where the use of advanced surveillance helped to dismantle gangs or locate war enemies. In a striking example of this occurrence, the aforementioned set of cameras tracked the movements of suspicious vehicles to locate a gang cartel in Juarez, Mexico responsible for 1500 murders. The cameras themselves do not have the capability to zoom in on to someone’s face. On the end of an operator receiving images from the cameras, people and objects are seen as shapes and dots, and one may only track their movements. In the end, the surveillance system proved to be helpful, without unveiling the identity of innocent civilians.