London, along with much of the rest of the UK, has an extraordinarily high number of CCTV cameras. It is argued that having cameras will act as a deterrent to crimes, and aid in solving those already committed. There is a long-standing debate, though, over whether cameras are the right way to deal with crime. One alternative is focusing on the causes of crime, such as underemployment or lack of access to education or job training. Graffiti artist Banksy has already weighed in on the anti-camera side, after painting a giant, three story protest piece right under the nose of a CCTV camera. Despite erecting unauthorized three story scaffolding, Banksy and his team got away scot free. Citizens around the UK continue to debate over whether the cameras do any good, but the number of cameras continues to rise.
By contrast, many US cities are not nearly so conducive to cameras. London's metro area is about the same size as the Twin Cities metro, and yet has 18 million citizens, compared to our 3.6 million. Add in the fact that much of the US is open highways and sprawling suburbs, and it is little surprise that many areas are turning to UAV drones to patrol the skies. The FAA estimates that 10,000 UAV drones could be flying over the US by the end of the decade, and other sources suggest that 30,000 UAV drones might be replacing most of the highway patrol vehicles we are used to by 2025. Proposals for unmanned ground vehicles a la "Terminator: Salvation" are gaining traction in California and Texas. When drones are on patrol, equipped with cameras that can pull the numbers off license plates from miles away, or read your book from above the clouds (and snoop on ubiquitous wireless transmissions), they will have unprecedented access to personal information. Before that happens, we need to examine the privacy policies that might govern these drones.
One difficulty that attaches to the situation is the fact that the FAA is ill-equipped to govern the privacy policies for drones. Lawmakers are concerned that the FAA is not prioritizing privacy, and the FAA itself acknowledges that it does not require drone operators to follow any privacy guidelines.
Unlike Google, which asserts that its email skimming methods are completely automated, drones still require pilots, and CCTV cameras are useless without someone to review the tapes. "Unmanned" is not "automated," and perhaps that is the most concerning thing. Yet on the other hand, automated systems still report to people, and those people make conclusions on the data their systems produce.
Maybe the solution isn't CCTV or drones. With crime rates dropping across the country, and across the world, isn't adding these monitors putting the cart in front of the horse? Maybe we don't need cities full of cameras or skies packed with drones. Maybe a focus on education, job creation, and equal opportunity is preventing crimes more than robotics ever could.
Or maybe it's just easier to buy a plane than ask the hard questions about social policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment