Is Big Brother Watching?
As with other increasingly complex concepts, privacy is one that has many nuanced meanings. That is, the more we experience issues of privacy, and are forced to create our own boundaries of public and private, a sliding scale of acceptability emerges for us individually. Then, we have to mix in those personal expectations of privacy, and reconcile them with third-party definitions and policies of privacy.
Everyone needs a privacy policy these days.
And it makes sense to a certain degree, but ultimately I wonder, does any ever actually read privacy policies? And if they do pay attention to such things, could a bad privacy policy change a consumers mind about using the product? I also wonder, to what extent do we value our privacy? Sure, when people think that their privacy has been violated, it is a big deal… but we sign over our rights to privacy on a daily basis. Especially those of us who are heavily engaged with the internet.
Last month, in an editorial piece on CNN, Pete Cashmore (a social media consultant) boldly stated that, “Privacy is dead, and social media is holding the smoking gun.” He gets into the nuts and bolts of why people embed themselves in these digital networks. He speaks of the “attention economy” and the notion that a public life is a successful one. The more public you are, the more capital you will earn. An interesting notion, and probably not too far from the truth.
By engaging in the participatory infrastructure of Cyberspace, we record and post our lives, for all to see and analyse. Even when we are clever and set up our privacy controls so that our “work friends” can’t invade our personal profiles, all of our online activity is continually fed into a massive stream of data which I imagine looks something like the Matrix. Every keystroke, every website visit, every tweet, every photo, every video we share and look at… all being fed into numerous databases for numerous purposes.
As a heavy feeder of data into these streams, I have tried to reconcile my private life with my public one; but I know that if I want to use them, and try to make some headway into the “attention economy”, I must reasonably expect that the price for participating in Cyberspace, is the recording of my every movement within it.
Of course, the underlying assumption in my (and perhaps your) use is that there is no unifying program tying all the little data droppings we leave behind in our daily lives… no one actually listening to and watching the Matrix… This is what allows us to easily invoke Big Brother as if it were still a fictional archetype of a society. Big Brother may have the capability of watching, but he only pays attention when you are breaking the rules, or exploiting personal data.
But what about the people who don’t participate in Cyberspace, and cite privacy issues as their reason number 1.
The HRM has over 1200 cameras in use across the city in facilities and on Metro Transit Buses. That figure is no where close to the total number of CCTV cameras in use across the city, and indeed the whole province. The article indicates (and I suspect most public opinion agrees) that the primary purpose for these cameras is safety, and crime prevention. Although no one is monitoring the cameras, and it is hard to imagine a camera stopping a crime in progress even if they are being monitored… it is generally acceptable that CCTV cameras are a good way to enhance our personal safety.
The Brits have been doing it for years already, and major cities across Canada seem to be adopting a model of surveillance, with one noticable difference from the way it is carried out over there. In the UK, you are constantly being reminded that you are being watched by an omnious voice that comes across the subway speakers every 10 minutes, and asked to assist the CCTV cameras and report “all suspicious activity to authorities.” The authorities want people to feel like Big Brother is watching (even if he isn’t).
In Canada we like to do these things more subtley and friendly… just check out the picture with the associated Herald Story… Smile, you are on camera.
And we complacently smile and wave away our expectations of privacy… enthusiastically even, when the Google car drives by.
But where do we draw the line in the sand? We accept public surveillance in the name of security and public safety. We find electronic banking convenient and reward cards rewarding. We accept most of the cameras and data-tracking. We accept the technology which invades and kills our privacy… in fact we love it. We assist in the creation of the panoptic mosaic which is our technocracy by documenting our lives ourselves, and sharing it with anyone who cares to take an interest.
Perhaps CCTV recording will always remain okay and acceptable by the public, so long as it is related to our activities which are conducted in public.
And perhaps it will remain okay when we install cameras in the houses of people on welfare, like they are now doing in the UK (as reported by Wired Magazine in August). It is apparently a reasonable and rational thing to do over there… so why not here?
I’m glad there are watchdog organizations out there who make it their business to advocate for a human right to privacy… but ultimately I’m just happy for the little claims to privacy I can still make. I still feel as though I am in relative control of my public/private boundaries. Though I acknowledge that control is fairly superficial, because as we are so often reminded – Big Brother could watch if he wanted to.
“Safer” Communities Act?
On the surface, the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act is a fine piece of legislation. It essentially empowers citizens in their communities to do something about brothels, crack-houses, gambling rings and other types of seedy operations in their neighbourhoods. Police then take this information, assess the situation, and if evidence warrants, they get a court order to evict the tenants of these crime houses.
“Shut ‘em down,” the mob cries.
Shutting down known crime houses, informed by the people who know best about the goings-on in their communities sounds great… no? But what if in the end, there are no criminal charges laid against the tenants of the crime houses being evicted? Certainly criminals live in houses where criminal activities are taking place… right? Certainly if a judge orders that tenants be removed from their homes, the tenants are facing criminal charges for their criminal activities… right? Certainly the idea is not to shut down crime houses and then disperse criminals elsewhere in other people’s communities… right?
So why is it then, that today there is a man in Cape Breton living in his car with his dogs, while his wife and one of his sons stays with friends, and his other two sons seek help for their addictions? According to CBC NS this morning, a family was removed from their home under the Safer Communities Act. The windows and doors boarded up for 90 days because of neighbour complaints of criminal activities taking place in the house. No one living in the house was charged with a criminal offense… no one living in the house was carted off to jail… no one living in the house was able to face their accusers in a court of law… and denied the right to even appeal the decision.
It is alarming.
Because while the Safer Communities Act has done much to shut down brothels and crack-houses and gambling rings in low-income neighbourhoods based on community reporting of criminal activities, how is it that making this family homeless will make the community safer?
I’m even willing to accept that criminal activity was indeed taking place in this guy’s house. That the complaints registered against this family by their neighbours were valid. That the consequences of having two adult sons suffering from addictions disrupted and unsettled the community. Given that I am not party to the documents which resulted in the court order I cannot make a decision on this either way. But it sort of sounds like this guy was a victim himself. Being a hostage to addiction in his own home.
What concerns me the most about this story, and the possible precedent that it sets, is that the burden of proof is reduced into some sort of perverted community-based panopticon. A family is sentanced to become homeless for 90 days because their neighbours didn’t like the kind of company they kept.
Perhaps I am over-reacting. Perhaps there is some piece of condemning evidence against this guy or other members of his family which is so compelling that such drastic measures were required. But it seems to me that if that were the case, there would be criminal charges of some description laid.
The kicker in this story is that the accused does not even have the right to appeal the decision. Even if he did, he cannot afford a lawyer to represent his family’s rights.
How is it that we can allow a family in this province, in the 21st century, suffer the consequences for crimes that were not committed? How is it that our own rule of law has allowed the tyranny of the majority to trump the personal security of a citizen? How is it that tossing a family suspected (but not convicted) of criminal activity out of their home for 90 days results in creating a safer community?
Addiction is a nasty thing. It is a mental health condition, fed by the desperation and hopelessness of poverty. It produces all kinds of unsavory and criminal activity in our communities and neighborhoods. But is our best strategy really to simply shut down the buildings without any plan to deal with the people inside of them?
I guess it’s just a good thing that 1) this guy didn’t have any kids under the age of 15 who were also rendered homeless by this bizzaro situation and 2) the curfew law is not yet in place… poor bugger would be facing a $500 fine everyday for the next 90 days, until they were allowed to go back into their home.
We need to seriously rethink the way we approach law and order around here.
Johnny Law may need a new slingshot… redux
I had the great pleasure of working with Donald Clairmont on the Mayor’s Roundtable of Violence and Public Safety back in 2007-2008. The Mayor’s Roundtable was a response to a crime wave involving mostly youth. A response to Teresa McEvoy and the kiddie swarmings and the late night downtown brawls that were breaking out (though the Christmas Eve brawl came after the meetings). A response to an American Sailor being stabbed and a few drive-by shootings. A response to a McLean’s Magazine article ranking Halifax as having the highest rates of crime in the country.
One of my tasks was to observe the Roundtable meeting at City Hall and take notes for Don, who was helping moderate the presentations. It was a long day, but I learned a lot about law and order in this city. I wrote a blog after the meeting, which you can read here if you want to… but given the recent crime wave bonanza in the city I thought I’d look back and see how many of the policy proposals and suggestions we’ve implemented since those meetings in 2007:
One theme that did not go unnoticed was the call for change… some sort of change… any sort of change… Recognition that the current system is not working and the culture is moving faster than any policy can catch. Just acknowledging that there is a need to start “thinking outside the box” is a big step for some of these officials. One of the best sentiments came from the Executive Director of the newly formed Provincial Child and Youth Strategy, Robert Wright… Any policy designed to address these issues of youth culture and societal change should be inclusive and acknowledge the multiplicity of contexts that are represented in day-to-day social life. And it should acknowledge that when it comes to policy surrounding youth, they are moving targets. A good youth policy/strategy has to be malleable and move as fast to meet the needs of the moment. Now whether the government can actually speed up the processes of bureaucracy will be another matter all together.
So a few of the specific suggestions that came from that day of presentations and where we are on them:
From the urban planner, Frank Palermo – HRM should start thinking of itself as a 24-hour city with 24 hour public transit. - yeah, okay… NEXT!
From a number of presenters – The opening of schools to act as community centres in after-school hours – well parents are fighting to keep community schools open just for school so… no.
Also from a number of presenters – Possibility of “community courts” for low level crimes, mental health related crime and drug treatment – we almost got a community court a few months ago, then something happened and it’s stalled
From Strategic Planner Jack Novack – The municipal government should get all the junk off their agenda and start thinking about policy that really matters for the growth and development of the city. – feeding the ducks… need I say more?
From Don Clairmont – The employment of a public safety coordinator attached to the Mayor’s Office well we got a public safety coordinator attached to the Police Force. I think the idea was to get an administrator in there, not another police officer… but, at least it is half there.
From Don Clairmont – Race Relations The race issue is never in the forefront of crime in Halifax, ever… despite the fact that black men are waaaaay overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Race relations are this city’s biggest shame… the ghosts of Africville haunt.
From Don Clairmont – Community Policing (not more police, but more visible police) – It seems as though they are doing both. They’ve hired more police, so that’s why I see them all the time and everywhere in the Capital Districts… There is a difference between visibility and feeling as though you are under siege in a police state.
Don gave about 60 recommendations to the City in total, some of them have started rolling and I think we’re seeing improvements where they have been. It would be interesting to know, from the City, how many of the recommendations from the Roundtable have been enacted since it came out last year.
My take on the current rash of shootings is that they are mostly gang-related. Which means they are almost certainly mostly drug-related. But there are concerning crimes happening that aren’t because of gangs .
Beazley said the public was not being targeted in the crimes that were happening. This was the day after 2 girls were taken hostage in a bowling alley heist, and a few days before a 19-year old was shot in the head (and then died).
The murder that was down the street from me turned out to be accidental2nd degree. In a run-down old rooming house involving folks know to the police. That was the 2nd 2nd degree murder on my block within the year.
And in the midst of it all Jimmy Melvin Jr. becomes a citizen journalist.
