Hypothetical situation about the opposite of a Big Brother Police State: you’re on a public street in a car registered in your name, in plain view of Tom, Dick, Harry, and pretty much every concept of God known to the Western World. In this situation, is a police officer allowed to look at you, or not allowed to look at you? The answer ought to be obvious.
So if you’re on a public street in a car registered in your name, in plain view of a GPS satellite, and probably carrying a phone and/or navigation system in your pants and on your dashboard, what makes you think that the police can’t use the same technology to watch you? Do you magically gain some sort of rights when computers are involved? A recent AP article about a court ruling in Michigan seems amazed at the lack of privacy we have while in public.
If we want to make a law requiring the police use only eyeballs to follow you, that’s fine. I think it’s much more cost-effective to have the police use technology to keep up with society, but there’s plenty of room for debate. However, let’s not act surprised that driving around on a public road is less than completely private.
Tags: big brother, constitutional law, privacy
In my mind, there’s no difference the two scenarios, except the ease and power of the information when technology is used. And that’s where people have an issue. People are comfortable with having “slices” of publicity, e.g. being spotted at the grocery, being seen on the street, going to the DMV, etc. But they’re not used to being constantly public, which the technology makes easier. It doesn’t change the game, it just pushes the bounds.
What is needed, however, it a guarantee to the public that the same is available to them. If big brother is spying on them, they need a way to spy back. And that’s something that “the man” doesn’t want you to do. And by “the man”, I mean Barbara Streisand.
I apologize for letting your comment languish in my spam queue for two weeks.
I completely agree with pretty much everything you said. I don’t know exactly how much the technology changes the game, but it clearly does change the game. A single officer can monitor dozens of locations at a single time.
And I agree with the need for openness. If we’re committed to an open society, the government should be the first to be open about its plans and its capabilities.