www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance
Harsh Kapoor on Sun, 7 Oct 2001 07:47:40 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance


I recall seeing posts on nettime on video surveillance & related issues. Here
is a report that might interest some of you.  

best
Harsh Kapoor

==============

The New York Times  |  Magazine
October 7, 2001

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/magazine/07SURVEILLANCE.html#

BEING WATCHED

A Cautionary Tale for a New Age of Surveillance
By JEFFREY ROSEN

PHOTO: Stephen Gill for The New York Times
Caption: Stolen Kiss
Surveillance cameras like this one in London capture criminals and 
noncriminals alike.

A week after the attacks of Sept. 11, as the value of most American stocks
plummeted, a few companies, with products particularly well suited for a new
and anxious age, soared in value. One of the fastest growing stocks was
Visionics, whose price more than tripled. The New Jersey company is an industry
leader in the fledgling science of biometrics, a method of identifying people
by scanning and quantifying their unique physical characteristics -- their
facial structures, for example, or their retinal patterns. Visionics
manufactures a face-recognition technology called FaceIt, which creates
identification codes for individuals based on 80 unique aspects of their facial
structures, like the width of the nose and the location of the temples. FaceIt
can instantly compare an image of any individual's face with a database of the
faces of suspected terrorists, or anyone else.

Visionics was quick to understand that the terrorist attacks represented not
only a tragedy but also a business opportunity. On the afternoon of Sept. 11,
the company sent out an e-mail message to reporters, announcing that its
founder and C.E.O., Joseph Atick, ''has been speaking worldwide about the need
for biometric systems to catch known terrorists and wanted criminals.'' On
Sept. 20, Atick testified before a special government committee appointed by
the secretary of transportation, Norman Mineta. Atick's message -- that
security in airports and embassies could be improved using face-recognition
technology as part of a comprehensive national surveillance plan that he called
Operation Noble Shield -- was greeted enthusiastically by members of the
committee, which seemed ready to endorse his recommendations. ''In the war
against terrorism, especially when it comes to the homeland defense,'' Atick
told me, describing his testimony, ''the cornerstone of this is going to be our
ability to identify the enemy before he or she enters into areas where public
safety could be at risk.'

Atick proposes to wire up Reagan National Airport in Washington and other
vulnerable airports throughout the country with more than 300 cameras each.
Cameras would scan the faces of passengers standing in line, and biometric
technology would be used to analyze their faces and make sure they are not on
an international terrorist ''watch list.'' More cameras unobtrusively installed
throughout the airport could identify passengers as they walk through metal
detectors and public areas. And a final scan could ensure that no suspected
terrorist boards a plane. ''We have created a biometric network platform that
turns every camera into a Web browser submitting images to a database in
Washington, querying for matches,'' Atick said. ''If a match occurs, it will
set off an alarm in Washington, and someone will make a decision to wire the
image to marshals at the airport.''

Of course, protecting airports is only one aspect of homeland security: a
terrorist could be lurking on any corner in America. In the wake of the Sept.
11 attacks, Howard Safir, the former New York police commissioner, recommended
the installation of 100 biometric surveillance cameras in Times Square to scan
the faces of pedestrians and compare them with a database of suspected
terrorists. Atick told me that since the attacks he has been approached by
local and federal authorities from across the country about the possibility of
installing biometric surveillance cameras in stadiums and subway systems and
near national monuments. ''The Office of Homeland Security might be the overall
umbrella that will coordinate with local police forces'' to install cameras
linked to a biometric network throughout American cities, Atick told me. ''How
can we be alerted when someone is entering the subway? How can we be sure when
someone is entering Madison Square Garden? How can we protect monuments? We
need to create an invisible fence, an invisible shield.''

Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their
lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at
them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have
seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered
privacy and anonymity. But in fact, over the past decade, this precise state of
affairs has materialized, not in the United States but in the United Kingdom.
At the beginning of September, as it happened, I was in Britain, observing what
now looks like a glimpse of the American future.

I had gone to Britain to answer a question that seems far more pertinent today
than it did early last month: why would a free and flourishing Western
democracy wire itself up with so many closed-circuit television cameras that it
resembles the set of ''The Real World'' or ''The Truman Show''? The answer, I
discovered, was fear of terrorism. In 1993 and 1994, two terrorist bombs
planted by the I.R.A. exploded in London's financial district, a historic and
densely packed square mile known as the City of London. In response to
widespread public anxiety about terrorism, the government decided to install a
''ring of steel'' -- a network of closed-circuit television cameras mounted on
the eight official entry gates that control access to the City.

Anxiety about terrorism didn't go away, and the cameras in Britain continued to
multiply. In 1994, a 2-year-old boy named Jamie Bulger was kidnapped and
murdered by two 10-year-old schoolboys, and surveillance cameras captured a
grainy shot of the killers leading their victim out of a shopping center.
Bulger's assailants couldn't, in fact, be identified on camera -- they were
caught because they talked to their friends -- but the video footage, replayed
over and over again on television, shook the country to its core. Riding a wave
of enthusiasm for closed-circuit television, or CCTV, created by the attacks,
John Major's Conservative government decided to devote more than three-quarters
of its crime-prevention budget to encourage local authorities to install CCTV.
The promise of cameras as a magic bullet against crime and terrorism inspired
one of Major's most successful campaign slogans: ''If you've got nothing to
hide, you've got nothing to fear.''

Instead of being perceived as an Orwellian intrusion, the cameras in Britain
proved to be extremely popular. They were hailed as the people's technology, a
friendly eye in the sky, not Big Brother at all but a kindly and watchful uncle
or aunt. Local governments couldn't get enough of them; each hamlet and fen in
the British countryside wanted its own CCTV surveillance system, even when the
most serious threat to public safety was coming from mad cows. In 1994, 79 city
centers had surveillance networks; by 1998, 440 city centers were wired. By the
late 1990's, as part of its Clintonian, center-left campaign to be tough on
crime, Tony Blair's New Labor government decided to support the cameras with a
vengeance. There are now so many cameras attached to so many different
surveillance systems in the U.K. that people have stopped counting. According
to one estimate, there are 2.5 million surveillance cameras in Britain, and in
fact there may be far more.

As I filed through customs at Heathrow Airport, there were cameras concealed in
domes in the ceiling. There were cameras pointing at the ticket counters, at
the escalators and at the tracks as I waited for the Heathrow express to
Paddington Station. When I got out at Paddington, there were cameras on the
platform and cameras on the pillars in the main terminal. Cameras followed me
as I walked from the main station to the underground, and there were cameras at
each of the stations on the way to King's Cross. Outside King's Cross, there
were cameras trained on the bus stand and the taxi stand and the sidewalk, and
still more cameras in the station. There were cameras on the backs of buses to
record people who crossed into the wrong traffic lane.

Throughout Britain today, there are speed cameras and red-light cameras,
cameras in lobbies and elevators, in hotels and restaurants, in nursery schools
and high schools. There are even cameras in hospitals. (After a raft of ''baby
thefts'' in the early 1990's, the government gave hospitals money to install
cameras in waiting rooms, maternity wards and operating rooms.) And everywhere
there are warning signs, announcing the presence of cameras with a jumble of
different icons, slogans and exhortations, from the bland ''CCTV in operation''
to the peppy ''CCTV: Watching for You!'' By one estimate, the average Briton is
now photographed by 300 separate cameras in a single day.

Britain's experience under the watchful eye of the CCTV cameras is a vision of
what Americans can expect if we choose to go down the same road in our efforts
to achieve ''homeland security.'' Although the cameras in Britain were
initially justified as a way of combating terrorism, they soon came to serve a
very different function. The cameras are designed not to produce arrests but to
make people feel that they are being watched at all times. Instead of keeping
terrorists off planes, biometric surveillance is being used to keep punks out
of shopping malls. The people behind the live video screens are zooming in on
unconventional behavior in public that in fact has nothing to do with
terrorism. And rather than thwarting serious crime, the cameras are being used
to enforce social conformity in ways that Americans may prefer to avoid.

The dream of a biometric surveillance system that can identify people's faces
in public places and separate the innocent from the guilty is not new. Clive
Norris, a criminologist at the University of Hull, is Britain's leading
authority on the social effects of CCTV.  In his definitive study, ''The
Maximum Surveillance Society: the Rise of CCTV,'' Norris notes that in the 19th
century, police forces in England and France began to focus on how to
distinguish the casual offender from the ''habitual criminal'' who might evade
detection by moving from town to town. In the 1870's, Alphonse Bertillon, a
records clerk at the prefecture of police in Paris, used his knowledge of
statistics and anthropomorphic measurements to create a system for comparing
the thousands of photographs of arrested suspects in Parisian police stations.
He took a series of measurements -- of skull size, for example, and the
distance between the ear and chin -- and created a unique code for every
suspect whom the police had photographed. Photographs were then grouped
according to the codes, and a new suspect could be compared only with the
photos that had similar measurements, instead of with the entire portfolio.
Though Bertillon's system was often difficult for unskilled clerks to
administer, a procedure that had taken hours or days was now reduced to a few
minutes.

It wasn't until the 1980's, with the development of computerized biometric and
other face-recognition systems, that Bertillon's dream became feasible on a
broad scale. In the course of studying how biometric scanning could be used to
authenticate the identities of people who sought admission to secure buildings,
innovators like Joseph Atick realized that the same technology could be used to
pick suspects or license plates out of a crowd. It's the license-plate
technology that the London police have found most attractive, because it tends
to be more reliable. (A test of the best face-recognition systems last year by
the U.S. Department of Defense found that they failed to identify matches a
third of the time.)

Soon after arriving in London, I visited the CCTV monitoring room in the City
of London police station, where the British war against terrorism began. I was
met by the press officer, Tim Parsons, and led up to the control station, a
modest-size installation that looks like an air-traffic-control room, with
uniformed officers manning two rows of monitors. Although installed to catch
terrorists, the cameras in the City of London spend most of their time
following car thieves and traffic offenders. ''The technology here is geared up
to terrorism,'' Parsons told me. ''The fact that we're getting ordinary people
-- burglars stealing cars -- as a result of it is sort of a bonus.''

Have you caught any terrorists? I asked. ''No, not using this technology, no,''
he replied.

As we watched the monitors, rows of slow-moving cars filed through the gates
into the City, and cameras recorded their license-plate numbers and the faces
of their drivers. After several minutes, one monitor set off a soft, pinging
alarm. We had a match! But no, it was a false alarm. The license plate that set
off the system was 8620bmc, but the stolen car recorded in the database was
8670amc. After a few more mismatches, the machine finally found an offender,
though not a serious one. A red van had gone through a speed camera, and the
local authority that issued the ticket couldn't identify the driver. An alert
went out on the central police national computer, and it set off the alarm when
the van entered the City. ''We're not going to do anything about it because
it's not a desperately important call,'' said the sergeant.

Because the cameras on the ring of steel take clear pictures of each driver's
face, I asked whether the City used the biometric facial recognition technology
that American airports are now being urged to adopt. ''We're experimenting with
it to see if we could pick faces out of the crowd, but the technology is not
sufficiently good enough,'' Parsons said. ''The system that I saw demonstrated
two or three years ago, a lot of the time it couldn't differentiate between a
man and a woman.'' (In a recent documentary about CCTV, Monty Python's John
Cleese foiled a Visionics face-recognition system that had been set up in the
London borough of Newham by wearing earrings and a beard.) Nevertheless,
Parsons insisted that the technology will become more accurate. ''It's just a
matter of time. Then we can use it to detect the presence of criminals on foot
in the city,'' he said.

In the future, as face-recognition technology becomes more accurate, it will
become even more intrusive, because of pressures to expand the biometric
database. I mentioned to Joseph Atick of Visionics that the City of London was
thinking about using his technology to establish a database that would include
not only terrorists but also all British citizens whose faces were registered
with the national driver's license bureau. If that occurs, every citizen who
walks the streets of the City could be instantly identified by the police and
evaluated in light of his past misdeeds, no matter how trivial. With the
impatience of a rationalist, Atick dismissed the possibility.  ''Technically,
they won't be able to do it without coming back to me,'' he said. ''They will
have to justify it to me.'' Atick struck me as a refined and thoughtful man (he
is the former director of the computational neuroscience laboratory at
Rockefeller University), but it seems odd to put the liberties of a democracy
in the hands of one unelected scientist.

Atick says that his technology is an enlightened alternative to racial and
ethnic profiling, and if the faces in the biometric database were, in fact,
restricted to known terrorists, he would be on to something. Instead of
stopping all passengers who appear to be Middle Eastern and victimizing
thousands of innocent people, the system would focus with laserlike precision
on a tiny handful of the guilty. (This assumes that the terrorists aren't
cunning enough to disguise themselves.) But when I asked whether any of the
existing biometric databases in England or America are limited to suspected
terrorists, Atick confessed that they aren't. There is a simple reason for
this: few terrorists are suspected in advance of their crimes. For this reason,
cities in England and elsewhere have tried to justify their investment in
face-recognition systems by filling their databases with those troublemakers
whom the authorities can easily identify: local criminals. When FaceIt
technology was used to scan the faces of the thousands of fans entering the
Super Bowl in Tampa last January, the matches produced by the database weren't
terrorists. They were low-level ticket scalpers and pickpockets.

Biometrics is a feel-good technology that is being marketed based on a false
promise -- that the database will be limited to suspected terrorists. But the
FaceIt technology, as it's now being used in England, isn't really intended to
catch terrorists at all. It's intended to scare local hoodlums into thinking
they might be setting off alarms even when the cameras are turned off. I came
to understand this ''Wizard of Oz'' aspect of the technology when I visited Bob
Lack's monitoring station in the London borough of Newham. A former London
police officer, Lack attracted national attention -- including a visit from
Tony Blair -- by pioneering the use of face-recognition technology before other
people were convinced that it was entirely reliable. What Lack grasped early on
was that reliability was in many ways beside the point.

Lack installed his first CCTV system in 1997, and he intentionally exaggerated
its powers from the beginning. ''We put one camera out and 12 signs''
announcing the presence of cameras, Lack told me. ''We reduced crime by 60
percent in the area where we posted the signs.  Then word on the street went
out that we had dummy cameras.'' So Lack turned his attention to
face-recognition technology and tried to create the impression that far more
people's faces were in the database than actually are. ''We've designed a
poster now about making Newham a safe place for a family,'' he said. ''And
we're telling the criminal we have this information on him: we know his name,
we know his address, we know what crimes he commits.'' It's not true, Lack
admits, ''but then, we're entitled to disinform some people, aren't we?''

So you're telling the criminal that you know his name even though you don't, I
asked? ''Right,'' Lack replied. ''Pretty much that's about advertising, isn't
it?''

Lack was elusive when I asked him who, exactly, is in his database.  ''I don't
know,'' he replied, noting that the local police chief decides who goes into
the database. He would only make an ''educated guess'' that the database
contains 100 ''violent street robbers'' under the age of 18. ''You have to have
been convicted of a crime -- nobody suspected goes on, unless they're a
suspected murderer -- and there has to be sufficient police intelligence to say
you are committing those crimes and have been so in the last 12 weeks.'' When I
asked for the written standards that determined who, precisely, was put in the
database, and what crimes they had to have committed, Lack promised to send
them, but he never did.

 From Lack's point of view, it doesn't matter who is in his database, because
his system isn't designed to catch terrorists or violent criminals. In the
three years that the system has been up and running, it hasn't resulted in a
single arrest. ''I'm not in the business of having people arrested,'' Lack
said. ''The deterrent value has far exceeded anything you imagine.'' He told me
that the alarms went off an average of three times a day during the month of
August, but the only people he would conclusively identify were local youths
who had volunteered to be put in the database as part of an ''intensive
surveillance supervision program,'' as an alternative to serving a custodial
sentence. ''The public statements about the efficacy of the Newham
facial-recognition system bear little relationship to its actual operational
capabilities, which are rather weak and poor,'' says Clive Norris of the
University of Hull. ''They want everyone to believe that they are potentially
under scrutiny.  Its effectiveness, perhaps, is based on a lie.''

This lie has a venerable place in the philosophy of surveillance. In his
preface to ''Panopticon,'' Jeremy Bentham imagined the social benefits of a
ring-shaped ''inspection-house,'' in which prisoners, students, orphans or
paupers could be subject to constant surveillance. In the center of the
courtyard would be an inspection tower with windows facing the inner wall of
the ring. Supervisors in the central tower could observe every movement of the
inhabitants of the cells, who were illuminated by natural lighting, but
Venetian blinds would ensure that the supervisors could not be seen by the
inhabitants. The uncertainty about whether or not they were being surveilled
would deter the inhabitants from antisocial behavior.  Michel Foucault
described the purpose of the Panopticon -- to induce in the inmate a state of
conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of
power.'' Foucault predicted that this condition of visible, unverifiable power,
in which individuals have internalized the idea that they may always be under
surveillance, would be the defining characteristic of the modern age.

Britain, at the moment, is not quite the Panopticon, because its various camera
networks aren't linked and there aren't enough operators to watch all the
cameras. But over the next few years, that seems likely to change, as Britain
moves toward the kind of integrated Web-based surveillance system that
Visionics has now proposed for American airports and subway systems. At the
moment, for example, the surveillance systems for the London underground and
the British police feed into separate control rooms, but Sergio Velastin, a
computer-vision scientist, says he believes the two systems will eventually be
linked, using digital technology.

Velastin is working on behavioral-recognition technology for the London
underground that can look for unusual movements in crowds, setting off an
alarm, for example, when people appear to be fighting or trying to jump on the
tracks. (Because human CCTV operators are easily bored and distracted,
automatic alarms are viewed as the wave of the future.) ''Imagine you see a
piece of unattended baggage which might contain a bomb,'' Velastin told me.
''You can back-drag on the image and locate the person who left it there. You
can say where did that person come from and where is that person now? You can
conceive in the future that you might be able to do that for every person in
every place in the system.'' Of course, Velastin admitted, ''if you don't have
social agreement about how you're going to operate that, it could get out of
control.''

Once thousands of cameras from hundreds of separate CCTV systems are able to
feed their digital images to a central monitoring station, and the images can
be analyzed with face- and behavioral-recognition software to identify unusual
patterns, then the possibilities of the Panopticon will suddenly become very
real. And few people doubt that connectivity is around the corner; it is, in
fact, the next step.  ''CCTV will become the fifth utility: after gas,
electricity, sewage and telecommunications,'' says Jason Ditton, a
criminologist at the University of Sheffield who is critical of the
technology's expansion. ''We will come to accept its ubiquitousness.''

At the moment, there is only one fully integrated CCTV in Britain: it transmits
digital images over a broadband wireless network, like the one Joseph Atick has
proposed for American airports, rather than relying on traditional video
cameras that are chained to dedicated cables. And so, for a still clearer
vision of the interconnected future of surveillance, I set off for Hull,
Britain's leading timber port, about three hours northeast of London. Hull has
traditionally been associated not with dystopian fantasies but with fantasies
of a more basic sort: for hundreds of years, it has been the prostitution
capital of northeastern Britain.

Six years ago, a heroin epidemic created an influx of addicted young women who
took to streetwalking to sustain their drug habit. Nearly two years ago, the
residents' association of a low-income housing project called Goodwin Center
hired a likable and enterprising young civil engineer named John Marshall to
address the problem of under-age prostitutes having sex on people's
windowsills.

Marshall, who is now 33, met me at the Hull railway station carrying a CCTV
warning sign. Armed with more than a million dollars in public financing from
the European Union, Marshall decided to build what he calls the world's first
Ethernet-based, wireless CCTV system.  Initially, Marshall put up 27 cameras
around the housing project. The cameras didn't bother the prostitutes, who in
fact felt safer working under CCTV. Instead, they scared the johns --
especially after the police recorded their license numbers, banged on their
doors and threatened to publish their names in the newspapers. Business
plummeted, and the prostitutes moved indoors or across town to the traditional
red-light district, where the city decided to tolerate their presence in
limited numbers.

But Marshall soon realized that he had bigger fish to fry than displacing
prostitutes from one part of Hull to another. His innovative network of linked
cameras attracted national attention, which led, a few months ago, to $20
million in grant money from various levels of government to expand the
surveillance network throughout the city of Hull. ''In a year and a half,''
Marshall says, ''there'll be a digital connection to every household in the
city. As far as cameras go, I can imagine that, in 10 years' time, the whole
city will be covered. That's the speed that CCTV is growing.'' In the world
that Marshall imagines, every household in Hull will be linked to a central
network that can access cameras trained inside and outside every building in
the city. ''Imagine a situation where you've got an elderly relative who lives
on the other side of the city,'' Marshall says. ''You ring her up, there's no
answer on the telephone, you think she collapsed -- so you go to the Internet
and you look at the camera in the lounge and you see that she's making a cup of
tea and she's taken her hearing aid out or something.''

The person who controls access to this network of intimate images will be a
very powerful person indeed. And so I was eager to meet the monitors of the
Panopticon for myself. On a side street of Hull, near the Star and Garter Pub
and the city morgue, the Goodwin Center's monitoring station is housed inside a
ramshackle private security firm called Sentry Alarms Ltd. The sign over the
door reads THE GUARD HOUSE. The monitoring station is locked behind a thick,
black vault-style door, but it looks like a college computer center, with an
Alicia Silverstone pinup near the door. Instead of an impressive video wall,
there are only two small desktop computers, which receive all the signals from
the Goodwin Center network. And the digital, Web-based images -- unlike
traditional video -- are surprisingly fuzzy and jerky, like streaming video
transmitted over a slow modem.

During my time in the control room, from 9 p.m. to midnight, I experienced
firsthand a phenomenon that critics of CCTV surveillance have often described:
when you put a group of bored, unsupervised men in front of live video screens
and allow them to zoom in on whatever happens to catch their eyes, they tend to
spend a fair amount of time leering at women. ''What catches the eye is groups
of young men and attractive, young women,'' I was told by Clive Norris, the
Hull criminologist. ''It's what we call a sense of the obvious.'' There are
plenty of stories of video voyeurism: a control room in the Midlands, for
example, took close-up shots of women with large breasts and taped them up on
the walls. In Hull, this temptation is magnified by the fact that part of the
operators' job is to keep an eye on prostitutes. As it got late, though, there
weren't enough prostitutes to keep us entertained, so we kept ourselves awake
by scanning the streets in search of the purely consensual activities of
boyfriends and girlfriends making out in cars. ''She had her legs wrapped
around his waist a minute ago,'' one of the operators said appreciatively as we
watched two teenagers go at it. ''You'll be able to do an article on how
reserved the British are, won't you?'' he joked. Norris also found that
operators, in addition to focusing on attractive young women, tend to focus on
young men, especially those with dark skin. And those young men know they are
being watched: CCTV is far less popular among black men than among British men
as a whole. In Hull and elsewhere, rather than eliminating prejudicial
surveillance and racial profiling, CCTV surveillance has tended to amplify it.

After returning from the digital city of Hull, I had a clearer understanding of
how, precisely, the spread of CCTV cameras is transforming British society and
why I think it's important for America to resist going down the same path. ''I
actually don't think the cameras have had much effect on crime rates,'' says
Jason Ditton, the criminologist, whose evaluation of the effect of the cameras
in Glasgow found no clear reduction in violent crime. ''We've had a fall in
crime in the last 10 years, and CCTV proponents say it's because of the
cameras. I'd say it's because we had a boom economy in the last seven years and
a fall in unemployment.'' Ditton notes that the cameras can sometimes be useful
in investigating terrorist attacks -- like the Brixton nail-bomber case in 1999
-- but there is no evidence that they prevent terrorism or other serious crime.

Last year, Britain's violent crime rates actually increased by 4.3 percent,
even though the cameras continued to proliferate. But CCTV cameras have a
mysterious knack for justifying themselves regardless of what happens to crime.
When crime goes up the cameras get the credit for detecting it, and when crime
goes down, they get the credit for preventing it.

If the creation of a surveillance society in Britain hasn't prevented terrorist
attacks, it has had subtle but far-reaching social costs.  The handful of
privacy advocates in Britain have tried to enumerate those costs by arguing
that the cameras invade privacy. People behave in self-conscious ways under the
cameras, ostentatiously trying to demonstrate their innocence or bristling at
the implication of guilt.  Inside a monitoring room near Runnymede, the
birthplace of the Magna Carta, I saw a group of teenagers who noticed that a
camera was pivoting around to follow them; they made an obscene gesture toward
it and looked back over their shoulders as they tried to escape its gaze.

The cameras are also a powerful inducement toward social conformity for
citizens who can't be sure whether they are being watched. ''I am gay and I
might want to kiss my boyfriend in Victoria Square at 2 in the morning,'' a
supporter of the cameras in Hull told me. ''I would not kiss my boyfriend now.
I am aware that it has altered the way I might behave. Something like that
might be regarded as an offense against public decency. This isn't San
Francisco.'' Nevertheless, the man insisted that the benefits of the cameras
outweighed the costs, because ''thousands of people feel safer.''

There is, in the end, a powerfully American reason to resist the establishment
of a national surveillance network: the cameras are not consistent with the
values of an open society. They are technologies of classification and
exclusion. They are ways of putting people in their place, of deciding who gets
in and who stays out, of limiting people's movement and restricting their
opportunities. I came to appreciate the exclusionary potential of the
surveillance technology in a relatively low-tech way when I visited a shopping
center in Uxbridge, a suburb of London. The manager of the center explained
that people who are observed to be misbehaving in the mall can be banned from
the premises. The banning process isn't very complicated.  ''Because this isn't
public property, we have the right to refuse entry, and if there's a wrongdoer,
we give them a note or a letter, or simply tell them you're banned.'' In
America, this would provoke anyone who was banned to call Alan Dershowitz and
sue for discrimination. But the British are far less litigious and more willing
to defer to authority.

Banning people from shopping malls is only the beginning. A couple of days
before I was in London, Borders Books announced the installation of a biometric
face-recognition surveillance system in its flagship store on Charing Cross
Road. Borders' scheme meant that that anyone who had shoplifted in the past was
permanently branded as a shoplifter in the future. In response to howls of
protest from America, Borders dismantled the system, but it may well be
resurrected in a post-Sept. 11 world.

Perhaps the reason that Britain has embraced the new technologies of
surveillance, while America, at least before Sept. 11, had strenuously resisted
them, is that British society is far more accepting of social classifications
than we are. The British desire to put people in their place is the central
focus of British literature, from Dickens to John Osborne and Alan Bennett. The
work of George Orwell that casts the most light on Britain's swooning embrace
of CCTV is not ''1984.'' It is Orwell's earlier book ''The English People.''

''Exaggerated class distinctions have been diminishing,'' Orwell wrote, but
''the great majority of the people can still be 'placed' in an instant by their
manners, clothes and general appearance'' and above all, their accents. Class
distinctions are less hardened today than they were when I was a student at
Oxford at the height of the Thatcher-era ''Brideshead Revisited'' chic. But
it's no surprise that a society long accustomed to the idea that people should
know their place didn't hesitate to embrace a technology designed to ensure
that people stay in their assigned places.

Will America be able to resist the pressure to follow the British example and
wire itself up with surveillance cameras? Before Sept.  11, I was confident
that we would. Like Germany and France, which are squeamish about CCTV because
of their experience with 20th-century totalitarianism, Americans are less
willing than the British to trust the government and defer to authority. After
Sept. 11, however, everything has changed. A New York Times/CBS news poll at
the end of September found that 8 in 10 Americans believe they will have to
give up some of their personal freedoms to make the country safe from terrorist
attacks.

Of course there are some liberties that should be sacrificed in times of
national emergency if they give us greater security. But Britain's experience
in the fight against terrorism suggests that people may give up liberties
without experiencing a corresponding increase in security. And if we meekly
accede in the construction of vast feel-good architectures of surveillance that
have far-reaching social costs and few discernible social benefits, we may
find, in calmer times, that they are impossible to dismantle.

It's important to be precise about the choice we are facing. No one is
threatening at the moment to turn America into Orwell's Big Brother. And
Britain hasn't yet been turned into Big Brother, either.  Many of the CCTV
monitors and camera operators and policemen and entrepreneurs who took the time
to meet with me were models of the British sense of fair play and respect for
the rules. In many ways, the closed-circuit television cameras have only
exaggerated the qualities of the British national character that Orwell
identified in his less famous book: the acceptance of social hierarchy combined
with the gentleness that leads people to wait in orderly lines at taxi stands;
a deference to authority combined with an appealing tolerance of hypocrisy.
These English qualities have their charms, but they are not American qualities.

The promise of America is a promise that we can escape from the Old World, a
world where people know their place. When we say we are fighting for an open
society, we don't mean a transparent society -- one where neighbors can peer
into each other's windows using the joysticks on their laptops. We mean a
society open to the possibility that people can redefine and reinvent
themselves every day; a society in which people can travel from place to place
without showing their papers and being encumbered by their past; a society that
respects privacy and constantly reshuffles social hierarchy.

The ideal of America has from the beginning been an insistence that your
opportunities shouldn't be limited by your background or your database; that no
doors should be permanently closed to anyone who has the wrong smart card. If
the 21st century proves to be a time when this ideal is abandoned -- a time of
surveillance cameras and creepy biometric face scanning in Times Square -- then
Osama bin Laden will have inflicted an even more terrible blow than we now
imagine.

Jeffrey Rosen is an associate professor at George Washington University Law
School and the legal affairs editor of The New Republic. He writes frequently
on law for The Times Magazine.

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information


-- 

----- End forwarded message -----
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net