One of the constant themes in dystopian films and novels is the ever-present concept of the “surveillance state” – a terrifying world in which the authorities monitor our every move through camera systems installed on every street corner. How can we live freely if the state is always monitoring our conversations and ready to arrest us for thoughtcrimes or careless acts?
In George Orwell's 1984, Big Brother is always watching. “If you want to keep a secret, you must hide it from yourself,” the novel explains. It's been 75 years since the book was published, and only 22 since the release of the film Minority Report, which predicted a world in which the Crime Prevention Bureau predicts future crimes and arrests people for them.
In a relatively short space of time, humanity has become accustomed to the intrusion of technology at previously unthinkable levels. Most of us have mixed feelings about this. We have seen great advances in medicine, food production, manufacturing, and information, but our society has also built the foundations for a terrifying and intrusive government.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported on a typical use of artificial intelligence in one city: “Every day in Long Beach, residents encounter numerous technologies that collect personal information. … Police patrol cars scan license plates. Cameras record the number of vehicles that pass through intersections. Smart water meters record each time a resident turns on their tap. Beachgoers enter their license plate number and credit card information into a mobile app to pay for parking.”
This list is a mix of good and potentially worrying technologies. It's hard to complain about smart meters, which are just a modern version of the meters water authorities have used to charge you for decades. Technology helps governments improve public services. We've all adapted to (and benefited from) an app-based world. There's no going back to the analogue era.
Most of us have also integrated helpful technology into our homes (“Alexa, tell me…”) and cars. I automatically receive a Google Timeline email that shows me exactly where I've been in the past month, the time I spent walking, driving, sitting on the couch. This is the work of private companies that (usually) have no ulterior motive other than to sell us things.
The issue has to do with governments and their access to and use of this data, tech or not: it's one thing for a parking company to scan my license plate to facilitate payment, but it's quite another for a city government to use such technology to track my movements or arrest me using shady face-scanning technology.
As the article points out, California has passed two groundbreaking data privacy laws. But these laws seem typical of a state run by pro-government progressives who believe private companies are to blame for all our problems. These laws place a heavy burden on companies working to develop and sell innovative products. They do nothing to limit the government's misuse of information to infringe on civil liberties.
“In 2020, the cities of Long Beach and Pasadena came under scrutiny for sharing license plate reader data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement despite pledging not to do so,” the article explains. Long Beach then developed a “Digital Rights Platform,” which, according to its website, “increases transparency by providing residents with detailed information about the technology we're deploying and how the city is using the data we collect.”
The city deserves credit for promoting transparency, but as always, cities and other governments need to place strict limits on their ability to track our movements, store information, and monitor our behavior. We have seen the results of government surveillance getting out of hand in countries as diverse as China and the UK. Recent local examples should be enough to spur legislative efforts to rein in local and state governments.
Reason magazine's Elizabeth Nolan Brown reported this month that San Diego-area police “are erecting creepy watchtowers, ostensibly to stop prostitutes and their clients from meeting, that record video of anyone who happens to be in the area.” It's ridiculous. Anyone wanting to engage in illegal activity would be wise to avoid doing so in front of those massive structures.
The real concerns come from less obvious, but still very intrusive, technologies. After all, law enforcement agencies tend to push the envelope on these issues. The ACLU reported on a case in Massachusetts where police installed a small video device on a utility pole and watched a family all day. This is even more of a case of what could be coming, and it's very worrying.
Technological advances will continue, but the key to preventing the “surveillance state” is to impose strict limits on government, rather than focusing on the companies that create technological wonders. When the dystopia arrives, it will be too late.
This column originally appeared in The Orange County Register.
