Edward Snowden's Their Eyes Are Watching You
Their Eyes Are Watching You
Enjoy a leisurely walk with a friend or spouse through a public park. They are watching. Drive a car across a toll bridge. They are watching. Ride your bicycle through busy intersections. They are watching. Enter a bus and listen to the lenses of security cameras zooming and focusing on you. They are still watching. Look forward, behind, and to your sides; notice the circular, glass eyes with variable zoom, multiple apertures, and quick shutter speeds. These are no normal human eyes. These “eyes” enable the U.S. Government—both nationally and locally--to observe, monitor, and analyze you in your daily commutes. Unfortunately, America continues to embody a dystopian society in regards to its transportation system …show more content…
as the government continues to implement an unreasonable degree of surveillance, crossing a boundary, a personal boundary.
While safety and security remain crucial and necessary in sustaining a country and protecting its inhabitants, the increasing usage of surveillance cameras in America’s transportation system continues to threaten privacy. Generally, people agree that “public places provide a basis for informal social and public lives … [and] everyday interaction” (Patton 181). The country’s transportation system is no exception. It provides individuals with not only a means to complete their daily tasks, but it also interconnects places and people, encouraging and promoting human interaction. However, excessive implementation of surveillance cameras induces fear and results in a consciousness to present oneself in a desirable way (i.e., the individual loses the space privacy affords to freely express themselves) (Macnish). People begin to conform so as to hide their vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and shortcomings from others. Thus, removing or threatening privacy limits confident and genuine interaction in public places because “[b]y being observed, people are individuated through this increased self-awareness, leading to guarded caution in their actions” (Patton 186). Consequently, this increased caution and loss of autonomy damages the transportation system’s cultural and social value. Although some argue that personal boundaries and the need for privacy deteriorates in a public setting, a balance, which will be discussed in-depth later, must be achieved between personal and public safety. In other words, one must consider what personal information is necessary, not additional, in maintaining public security and safety. Overall, the potential consequences of threatening privacy implore a significant question: does the end of increased security justify the means of the increasing use of surveillance cameras?
Public safety is not the only motivation for surveillance. Unfortunately, the possession of private and confidential information also provides the party that surveils with an unreasonable degree of power. The United States Department of Transportation controls the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), a technological framework of video cameras, license-plate readers, geographic information systems, and computers. However, recently, “public-private partnerships” have emerged as state governments continue to sell rights to private industries (Monahan 370, 372). These “partnerships” present serious concerns to citizens. With such information and data provided by ITS, private companies develop control and agency over citizens. Even more concerning, “privacy concerns may be amplified because companies have an interest in using or selling those data for the marketing of products and services” (Monahan 373). Industries obtaining control and possession over private information only incentivizes them to increase surveillance and intruding personal boundaries for business benefits and gains.
Intelligent surveillance devices not only threaten privacy but also trivialize trust, damaging the relationship between the government and its citizens.
Often, trust and privacy are grouped together (Macnish). Edward Snowden, former CIA contractor, exemplifies this relationship when he leaked documents revealing the mass and discrete surveillance by U.S. agencies. (“Edward Snowden”) The information he revealed raised concerns in the public, regarding the government’s lack of transparency. Many individuals became increasingly suspicious, questioning the government’s actions at “the discovery of increased surveillance, especially when [they] the surveilled party [considered themselves mostly] innocent,… [leading] to decreased levels of trust” (Macnish), in the government. The public responded defensively with the question: “Why should I trust you if you do not trust me?” (Macnish). Consequently, the response to the government’s unwarranted surveillance effectively demonstrates the relationship between privacy and trust (i.e. with increased privacy comes an increased level of trust. However, an intrusion of privacy results in decreased levels of trust.). Thus, by trivializing the citizen’s loyalty and confidence in their intentions and actions for the sake of increased surveillance and investigation, the government witnessed an angered public. The government damaged an important
relationship.
Although some argue that the relationship between the government and the public is mendable, as agencies continue to challenge and cross personal boundaries, the increased exposure to surveillance devices may potentially lead to an irreversible development in the citizens’ toleration and lack of self-guardianship. Expanding surveillance systems results in “the risk of [individuals] adjusting to less and less privacy” (Macnish). This adjustment or toleration affects the psyche of individuals because “instead of worrying about Big Brother watching them, the public may perceive that big father as sorted everything out” (Fahlquist). In other words, individuals regress in their self-guardianship, believing that public spaces are entirely safe settings with little to no harm. Such thinking prevents the public from recognizing the importance and need to protect themselves. In addition, many may develop a numbness and lack of mental preparation to the possibility of violence and threats toward their health and well-being. Thus, adjustment toward increased surveillance may lead to significant regressions in self-guardianship and preparation to handle and respond to violent or traumatic events.
As previously mentioned, some claim that the transportation system like other public places, does not afford citizens the same space for privacy as location like a bedroom. While the argument is understandable, individuals in a public setting hold no obligation to relinquish all their rights to privacy. In fact, when recognizing the government’s limits for how far or to what extent they may surveil and collect information on citizens, the theory of contextual integrity arises. The theory primarily states, “the protection of personal information [should be linked] to the norms of specific contexts, [r]ejecting, the broadly defined public/private dichotomy…” (Zimmer). Essentially, in a specific context, there are norms of appropriateness. For example, a surgeon questioning a patient about their history with drugs, alcohol or addictions would be considered appropriate. However, it would be deemed inappropriate for a retail cashier to ask for the same information, or in regards to the transportation system, a close friend questioning why a car driver is traveling to a specific location and what they plan to do there would be considered appropriate. On the other hand, if the government asked or sought out the same information, many would view the government’s actions as inappropriate and invasive. In general, “what type and how much personal information is relevant and appropriate to be shared with others” (Zimmer) is contingent upon a given context. Standing in a line at a store, walking through a busy city street, or being in some other public setting “does not imply that ‘anything goes’ in terms of [one’s] personal information” (Zimmer). Again, the context of the situation significantly matters.
Unfortunately, the introduction of surveillance technology may negatively affect norms of appropriateness and the flow of information. The purpose to practice contextual integrity in public settings, such as the transportation system, “is to promote the preservation of privacy and personal information in support of broader social, political and moral values such (1) prevention of information-based harm, (2) autonomy, (3) freedom, and other human values” (Zimmer). However, technology, specifically surveillance technology, threatens to disrupt contextual integrity by introducing and “supporting countervailing values such as (1) freedom of speech, (2) efficiency, or (3) security” (Zimmer). Clashing values, threaten contextual integrity, a necessary component in the transportation system. Thus, to avoid such a threat, the public must either decide if certain surveillance technology is too invasive, or citizens must reconsider norms of appropriateness to allow for increased surveillance (Zimmer). Maintaining contextual integrity in the transportation system helps protect citizens’ personal rights and privacy while still allowing the government to conduct surveillance for the betterment and safety of the public.
The transportation system, as previously established, is a public setting. A public setting represents the collective. The collective holds authority over the use of the public, and yet the collective wrongfully allows the government to quiet their voice and ignore their authority. If the transportation network represents a part of “the public space … [and if] … the public space is by definition accessible to all, [then] responsibility for that place and the decision making that shapes it should similarly be broadly accessible” (Monahan 183). However, the decision making behind transportation surveillance is limited to select individuals and organizations. This lack of broad accessibility, not only ignores the public’s authority but also prevents citizen’s engagement and ability to respond to practices and technology they consider as too invasive. Thus, if the government quiets the collective’s voice on the matters of transportation surveillance, then agencies can continue to intrude citizens’ personal boundaries.
The expansion and invasiveness of America’s transportation surveillance system continues to quiet the voices of its citizens and cross their personal boundaries. The nation unfortunately increasingly embodies a dystopian society as private and government agencies surveil individuals. Their actions pressure the public to respond in a desirable way so as to protect themselves. As a result, genuine and confident human interaction decreases as individuals lack the autonomy and comfort to freely express themselves, damaging the transportation system’s social value. More concerning, rather than asking themselves how they can contribute to the greater good or the public, citizens, instead, focus on how they can please or satisfy the government. The public must respond by reclaiming their voice and authority in order to mend their relationship with the government and to discuss affairs that significantly affect their lives, such as transportation surveillance.
Enjoy a leisurely walk with a friend or spouse through a public park. They are watching. Drive a car across a toll bridge. They are watching. Ride your bicycle through busy intersections. They are watching. Enter a bus and listen to the lenses of security cameras zooming and focusing on you. They are still watching. Look forward, behind, and to your sides; notice the circular, glass eyes with variable zoom, multiple apertures, and quick shutter speeds. These are no normal human eyes. These “eyes” enable the U.S. Government—both nationally and locally--to observe, monitor, and analyze you in your daily commutes. Unfortunately, America continues to embody a dystopian society in regards to its transportation system …show more content…
as the government continues to implement an unreasonable degree of surveillance, crossing a boundary, a personal boundary.
While safety and security remain crucial and necessary in sustaining a country and protecting its inhabitants, the increasing usage of surveillance cameras in America’s transportation system continues to threaten privacy. Generally, people agree that “public places provide a basis for informal social and public lives … [and] everyday interaction” (Patton 181). The country’s transportation system is no exception. It provides individuals with not only a means to complete their daily tasks, but it also interconnects places and people, encouraging and promoting human interaction. However, excessive implementation of surveillance cameras induces fear and results in a consciousness to present oneself in a desirable way (i.e., the individual loses the space privacy affords to freely express themselves) (Macnish). People begin to conform so as to hide their vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and shortcomings from others. Thus, removing or threatening privacy limits confident and genuine interaction in public places because “[b]y being observed, people are individuated through this increased self-awareness, leading to guarded caution in their actions” (Patton 186). Consequently, this increased caution and loss of autonomy damages the transportation system’s cultural and social value. Although some argue that personal boundaries and the need for privacy deteriorates in a public setting, a balance, which will be discussed in-depth later, must be achieved between personal and public safety. In other words, one must consider what personal information is necessary, not additional, in maintaining public security and safety. Overall, the potential consequences of threatening privacy implore a significant question: does the end of increased security justify the means of the increasing use of surveillance cameras?
Public safety is not the only motivation for surveillance. Unfortunately, the possession of private and confidential information also provides the party that surveils with an unreasonable degree of power. The United States Department of Transportation controls the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), a technological framework of video cameras, license-plate readers, geographic information systems, and computers. However, recently, “public-private partnerships” have emerged as state governments continue to sell rights to private industries (Monahan 370, 372). These “partnerships” present serious concerns to citizens. With such information and data provided by ITS, private companies develop control and agency over citizens. Even more concerning, “privacy concerns may be amplified because companies have an interest in using or selling those data for the marketing of products and services” (Monahan 373). Industries obtaining control and possession over private information only incentivizes them to increase surveillance and intruding personal boundaries for business benefits and gains.
Intelligent surveillance devices not only threaten privacy but also trivialize trust, damaging the relationship between the government and its citizens.
Often, trust and privacy are grouped together (Macnish). Edward Snowden, former CIA contractor, exemplifies this relationship when he leaked documents revealing the mass and discrete surveillance by U.S. agencies. (“Edward Snowden”) The information he revealed raised concerns in the public, regarding the government’s lack of transparency. Many individuals became increasingly suspicious, questioning the government’s actions at “the discovery of increased surveillance, especially when [they] the surveilled party [considered themselves mostly] innocent,… [leading] to decreased levels of trust” (Macnish), in the government. The public responded defensively with the question: “Why should I trust you if you do not trust me?” (Macnish). Consequently, the response to the government’s unwarranted surveillance effectively demonstrates the relationship between privacy and trust (i.e. with increased privacy comes an increased level of trust. However, an intrusion of privacy results in decreased levels of trust.). Thus, by trivializing the citizen’s loyalty and confidence in their intentions and actions for the sake of increased surveillance and investigation, the government witnessed an angered public. The government damaged an important
relationship.
Although some argue that the relationship between the government and the public is mendable, as agencies continue to challenge and cross personal boundaries, the increased exposure to surveillance devices may potentially lead to an irreversible development in the citizens’ toleration and lack of self-guardianship. Expanding surveillance systems results in “the risk of [individuals] adjusting to less and less privacy” (Macnish). This adjustment or toleration affects the psyche of individuals because “instead of worrying about Big Brother watching them, the public may perceive that big father as sorted everything out” (Fahlquist). In other words, individuals regress in their self-guardianship, believing that public spaces are entirely safe settings with little to no harm. Such thinking prevents the public from recognizing the importance and need to protect themselves. In addition, many may develop a numbness and lack of mental preparation to the possibility of violence and threats toward their health and well-being. Thus, adjustment toward increased surveillance may lead to significant regressions in self-guardianship and preparation to handle and respond to violent or traumatic events.
As previously mentioned, some claim that the transportation system like other public places, does not afford citizens the same space for privacy as location like a bedroom. While the argument is understandable, individuals in a public setting hold no obligation to relinquish all their rights to privacy. In fact, when recognizing the government’s limits for how far or to what extent they may surveil and collect information on citizens, the theory of contextual integrity arises. The theory primarily states, “the protection of personal information [should be linked] to the norms of specific contexts, [r]ejecting, the broadly defined public/private dichotomy…” (Zimmer). Essentially, in a specific context, there are norms of appropriateness. For example, a surgeon questioning a patient about their history with drugs, alcohol or addictions would be considered appropriate. However, it would be deemed inappropriate for a retail cashier to ask for the same information, or in regards to the transportation system, a close friend questioning why a car driver is traveling to a specific location and what they plan to do there would be considered appropriate. On the other hand, if the government asked or sought out the same information, many would view the government’s actions as inappropriate and invasive. In general, “what type and how much personal information is relevant and appropriate to be shared with others” (Zimmer) is contingent upon a given context. Standing in a line at a store, walking through a busy city street, or being in some other public setting “does not imply that ‘anything goes’ in terms of [one’s] personal information” (Zimmer). Again, the context of the situation significantly matters.
Unfortunately, the introduction of surveillance technology may negatively affect norms of appropriateness and the flow of information. The purpose to practice contextual integrity in public settings, such as the transportation system, “is to promote the preservation of privacy and personal information in support of broader social, political and moral values such (1) prevention of information-based harm, (2) autonomy, (3) freedom, and other human values” (Zimmer). However, technology, specifically surveillance technology, threatens to disrupt contextual integrity by introducing and “supporting countervailing values such as (1) freedom of speech, (2) efficiency, or (3) security” (Zimmer). Clashing values, threaten contextual integrity, a necessary component in the transportation system. Thus, to avoid such a threat, the public must either decide if certain surveillance technology is too invasive, or citizens must reconsider norms of appropriateness to allow for increased surveillance (Zimmer). Maintaining contextual integrity in the transportation system helps protect citizens’ personal rights and privacy while still allowing the government to conduct surveillance for the betterment and safety of the public.
The transportation system, as previously established, is a public setting. A public setting represents the collective. The collective holds authority over the use of the public, and yet the collective wrongfully allows the government to quiet their voice and ignore their authority. If the transportation network represents a part of “the public space … [and if] … the public space is by definition accessible to all, [then] responsibility for that place and the decision making that shapes it should similarly be broadly accessible” (Monahan 183). However, the decision making behind transportation surveillance is limited to select individuals and organizations. This lack of broad accessibility, not only ignores the public’s authority but also prevents citizen’s engagement and ability to respond to practices and technology they consider as too invasive. Thus, if the government quiets the collective’s voice on the matters of transportation surveillance, then agencies can continue to intrude citizens’ personal boundaries.
The expansion and invasiveness of America’s transportation surveillance system continues to quiet the voices of its citizens and cross their personal boundaries. The nation unfortunately increasingly embodies a dystopian society as private and government agencies surveil individuals. Their actions pressure the public to respond in a desirable way so as to protect themselves. As a result, genuine and confident human interaction decreases as individuals lack the autonomy and comfort to freely express themselves, damaging the transportation system’s social value. More concerning, rather than asking themselves how they can contribute to the greater good or the public, citizens, instead, focus on how they can please or satisfy the government. The public must respond by reclaiming their voice and authority in order to mend their relationship with the government and to discuss affairs that significantly affect their lives, such as transportation surveillance.