WE SEE IT ALL

A cogent critique of the age of ubiquitous surveillance.

By Economist correspondent Fasman’s account, much of the present inventory of tools used by various police agencies is a threat to our civil liberties. Take the cameras, for instance, with which police vehicles are ever more frequently equipped, ones that take photographs of license plates and feed those images into a vast database. Now, the author points out more than once, if a human police photographer were to wander up and down a street taking photographs of license plates, we would want to know why; so how has this less intrusive technology become so widespread and so little contested? Similarly, he suggests, facial recognition technologies normalize the workings of a police state in the making. It’s not just the police: As Fasman writes, a Chinese entrepreneur has made a fortune with an app called Clearview, which, while widely used by police agencies, allows nearly anyone to gather private information about anyone else. That same technology was developed by Google—and, says its former chairman, was “the only technology that Google has built and, after looking at it…decided to stop,” since the possibilities of its being put to bad uses were immediately obvious. It would not surprise readers to know that the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on anyone’s cellphone conversations, but it certainly should surprise everyone to know that even the smallest police department can do it. Similarly, any police agency can send a drone to photograph a perfectly legal demonstration. The overarching question such abilities raise, Fasman notes provocatively, is a simple one: “How much state surveillance are you willing to tolerate for improved public safety?” Anything more than the minimum is dangerous, he answers, for “that way China lies.”

An urgent examination of police-state intrusions on the privacy of lawful and law-abiding citizens.