diff --git a/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cee1ae0 --- /dev/null +++ b/_articles/the-surveillance-state.adoc @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@ +--- +title: The Surveillance State +date: 2018-03-13 12:32:20 +tags: Politics Freedom Surveillance Privacy +description: > + In the past three months I have attended three meetups focused on privacy + and security. Though these were reasonably small gatherings, I still had some + interesting conversations with interesting people. +wip: true +--- += The Surveillance State +:toc: preamble + +In the past three months, I have attended meetups focused primarily on +privacy, and a slight part on security. At these gatherings, we have had +discussions with other people, the latest of which focused on surveillance +cameras. Due to time limits, I was not able to discuss every point raised in +depth. + +This article is intended to give a more thorough overview of my arguments +against some of the popular arguments in favor of more surveillance cameras in +the city of Den Bosch. + +== Raising awareness +First off, I think it's a great initiative to raise awareness on political +issues like this, which are rarely discussed in a proper fashion by the +politicians themselves. What surprised me during all the meetups was that I was +one of the youngest, if not the youngest attendee in the crowd. Most of the +attendees were people of 40 years or older, which makes it seem like politics +(or specifically politics about privacy) are not interesting for the new +generation of voters. + +Having tried to raise this issue with friends, family members, and online, I can +clearly see that there is very little interest in privacy or security with the +average citizen. A common answer is "I'm not doing anything wrong" or "I have +nothing to hide". + +== Opening discussion +Awareness is great to have, since it opens up the possibilities for discussion. +It's incredibly hard to discuss something that people aren't aware is even +happening. I think the first and especially the last meetup did a great job in +getting people to discuss their views on the issues. + +At the last meetup, I personally took issue with some of the argumentation +given to us by a law enforcement officer, who was greatly in favor of +surveillance cameras. I tried to discuss these arguments with him, but he +seemed to care very little about the opinions of others, and instead opted to +simply restate his first argument. + +=== There's no point in stopping something that is already happening +Or, as he said it, "you're trying to stop a flood of water with your hands". +I'd like to note the irony of a Dutch person saying you can't stop water, +seeing as how the Dutch people have been doing this for quite a while with the +dykes. + +The argument itself is defeatist in nature: it's happening, so there's no point +in doing anything about it. Our entire society is built upon the idea of laws +to stop people from doing things which are considered bad. He as a police +officer would have a very boring job if his captain said there's no point in +trying to stop crime since it's happening already anyway. + +The point of a democratic society is that we can vote against things we, as +citizens, find bad, so policies can be made to stop such practices. This is one +such thing. Some people may find it bad, others may say it's a good change. +But claiming one should just accept it for the sole fact that it's already +happening makes very little sense to me. + +=== Absolute confidence and trust in the technology and its implementers +His second argument was about confidence in the entire system, and trust in the +people who create, maintain and use it. + +I can guarantee you, as a software engineer, that having absolute trust in +software is possibly one of the most stupid things you can do. My job exists +because bugs appear. There is not a single software project that I would trust +absolutely to be completely correct in its implementation. + +He made this argument by claiming that he had friends in the IT sector of the +government, and was therefore knowledgeable on the surveillance camera project. +He knew these people would not abuse their powers in any way or form. Which is +nice to know, but these specific people, even if I too knew and trusted them, +won't be in charge forever. With long-running projects like these, you need to +account for the future, and the people maintaining and using the systems then. + +Trust in the technology is also a rather hard point to sell to citizens. +Citizens are not allowed to know about the hardware specifications, or the +software in use, or the software used to store and analyze video footage. It is +impossible to put trust in a system you have no insight of. If the government +would be transparent in their IT projects, maybe we as citizens could put some +trust in these systems. + +=== It's the same as putting an officer at each camera location +Another argument he raised in defense of surveillance cameras was to put an +officer at every camera location instead. Nobody would complain about this like +they do when it's cameras. These officers would then tell one another what they +were seeing, which is less trustworthy than actual camera footage. + +While he is correct that an officer's retelling of an event might be less +trustworthy than actual camera footage, there is a major flaw in the argument: +more surveillance cameras aren't going to stop any crime. They can assist in +finding the perpetrator and retelling the story of what happened at a given +location, but they're not stopping any crime. Law enforcement officers *can* +stop crimes that are happening right in front of their eyes. + +=== More street cameras will stop the production of child porn +This was possibly the most egregious of his claims. He reasoned that cameras +keep an eye on both the public life and also the "hidden" lives of criminals, +and part of the "hidden" crimes they are supposedly solving with the cameras +are the crimes of child prostitution and child porn production. + +For starters, I highly doubt the cameras will bring insight into "hidden" +crimes, as they are named "hidden" for a reason. They might be able to spot +such events if they were happening in public, but I'd guess that such criminals +would be arrested by cops if they do it this publicly. If police officers would +not arrest them if they did it in broad daylight, I highly doubt they'd be able +to do so if they do it out of sight. Cameras make no difference in this +perspective. + +Secondly, the argument of child porn and prostitutes is, together with +terrorism, a very recurring argument by officials as a (or the) reason to add +more surveillance. However, there are no statistics on how much of these +activities have been thwarted compared to the amount of privacy and freedom we +as civilians had to sacrifice for it. To add salt to the wound, in the United +Kingdom, a place where they have quite a lot of camera surveillance already, +multiple astonishingly large pedophile networks have been discovered. Victims +of these networks say that these crimes are still happening. Clearly, simply +adding surveillance isn't doing the trick to stop these activities. + +== Local politician refuses to answer questions +This was a sad announcement. For the last event, the organizers had sought +contact with a local politician who deals with the surveillance cameras. They +had arranged this many weeks in advance, and the original answer was positive. +Sadly, shortly before the actual meetup, this person informed the organizers +they will not be attending due to the political circumstances. + +This circumstance was the upcoming elections. The person did not want to answer +questions on the topic of surveillance, apparently out of fear that it might +influence the results. This bothers me quite a bit, as information +about policies like this are important to discuss with the politicians, so you +can make a better decision on whom to vote for. Transparency is a very important +aspect of a healthy democracy, and this politician seems to be actively working +against this. + +In his last message, there was a possibility of having a Q&A session with them +after the elections happened. The organizers of the event showed interest in +taking them up on their offer, and would make announcements if they could reach +an agreement (once more). If this happens, I will surely attend and request +more information about his reasoning.