Surveillance of private citizens is a given in today’s world. Most of us accept the fact that we are being observed by someone and something to some degree for at least a portion of our daily lives.
Sure, there are limits to what is deemed acceptable, but those limits seem to be exceed and re-set in the public mind with upsetting regularity. There was a point not long ago when traffic cameras and CCTV Police scanners were considered blatantly un-Constitutional. Now the outrage-point requires the selling off our personal data from one business to another for profit and manipulation. Data records, I might add, of such detail and depth they would make J. Edgar Hoover blush.
Well, ever the progressive trend-setter, California is leading the way in anti-surveillance legislation. Or at least, cities within the state are trying it out.
Oakland, considered by many to be San Francisco’s urinal, is proposing the formation of a special city council that would be responsible for approving any municipal surveillance initiatives. The Privacy Advisory Commission would be civilian-led and review “technology impact reports” submitted by any agency that wishes to set up a surveillance program. That includes the police.
This seems smart, if unavoidably bureaucratic. But here’s the kicker: it’s more about preventing the FEDERAL government from gaining access to the state’s surveillance systems.
For example, in February of 2017, multiple cities in California nixed plans for an automated license plate reader systems when it was discovered that the manufacturer of those systems already had a contract to secretly share the collected data with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You know, ICE. Yeah, those assholes.
So…I don’t know about you, but I’m glad we’re at least thinking about this stuff and getting some kind of legal concepts about it in the books.
It’s going to get weird.