The Upsides of a Surveillance Society

theodp writes Citing the comeuppance of ESPN reporter Britt McHenry, who was suspended from her job after her filmed ad-hominem attack on a person McHenry deemed to be beneath her in terms of appearance, education, wealth, class, status went viral, The Atlantic's Megan Garber writes that one silver lining of the omnipresence of cameras it that the possibility of exposure can also encourage us to be a little kinder to each other. "Terrible behavior," Garber writes, "whether cruel or violent or something in between, has a greater possibility than it ever has before of being exposed. Just as Uber tracks ratings for both its drivers and its users, and just as Yelp can be a source of shaming for businesses and customers alike, technology at large has afforded a reciprocity between people who, in a previous era, would have occupied different places on the spectrum of power. Which can, again, be a bad thing — but which can also, in McHenry's case, be an extremely beneficial one. It's good that her behavior has been exposed. It's good that her story going viral might discourage similar behavior from other people. It's good that she has publicly promised 'to learn from this mistake.'"

Comments

no... just no

[ganjadude]

while it can be used to make people "kinder" it can also be used for abuse. just look at all the companies that are being tricked into making statements, and being bombarded by the social mobs over it.

Its not making people be nicer, its helping lonely people harass others

Re:no... just no

[epyT-R]

Not even 'kinder' really, just more passive aggressive. This makes the abuse that much worse...assuming of course that it is abuse and not just valid criticism. There's a lot out there making the same arguments because they want the chance to shame valid criticism they don't like or is not in their interest.

Re:no... just no

[knightghost]

Everyone loses it once in a while. Most viral type posts lack the context that make the situation understandable - so people jump to conclusions that they prefer.

Polite is not the same as Nice. Polite is a lie. Nice is results. Polite is a smile while twisting a knife in someone's back. Nice is taking that knife so that someone else doesn't have to. People often confuse the two because they don't take the effort to think.

Re:no... just no

[ganjadude]

its also helping those "victims" become bullies themselves.

Re:no... just no

[penguinoid]

Clearly an upside of ubiquitous surveillance is that now towing companies can provide you with both loss of transportation *and* loss of employment. Be sure to call Advanced Towing for their excellent customer service!

Re:no... just no

[Jack Griffin]

Its not making people be nicer, its helping lonely people harass others

Actually it's both. I've seen plenty of cases first hand of bullies getting their comeuppance thanks to casual surveillance, and we've all seen cases of abuse. Like the car, it can be both a tool and weapon. It would be foolish to write off it's benefits just because of the odd car crash. As long as we manage the new era of the surveillance society, I think it can deliver a net gain.

Surveillance is okay

[fustakrakich]

It is only a problem when somebody (state/corp) has the advantage.

Re:Surveillance is okay

[fustakrakich]

For all the complaints leveled at the NSA there has been no proof that they have ever used that information against it's own citizens.

Hard to say when you can't cross examine the records. If the government doesn't open the books, we have to assume the worst. We have to maintain the Sword of Damocles over their heads.

Re:Surveillance is okay

[NormalVisual]

For all the complaints leveled at the NSA there has been no proof that they have ever used that information against it's own citizens.

From this Reuters story:

One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." The prosecutor never filed charges in the case because he lost confidence in the investigation, he said.

Re:Surveillance is okay

[Anonymous Coward]

For all the complaints leveled at the NSA there has been no proof that they have ever used that information against it's own citizens.

Does stalking count?

Re:Yeah. Totalitarian dictatorships have upsides t

[lucm]

Cheer up! In totalitarian dictatorships there's less petty crime, like shoplifting and drug dealing.

That's what they tell you.

I don't know about that surveillance thing

[lucm]

But what a cunt. I just wanted to clarify that.

Re:I don't know about that surveillance thing

[dinfinity]

You do realize that by implying that killing her is possibly an appropriate reaction, you've actually showed yourself to be a worse human being than aforementioned cunt, don't you?

Why is this a good thing again?

[Karmashock]

Yes, people shouldn't be raging assholes but in what way is shaming the occasional raging asshole justification for a surveillance society?

This like... pros and cons of an alien invasion from outer space.

On the down side we're all going to be slaves.

But on the plus side we have ray guns now. We don't control the ray guns... they're mostly pointed at us and our overlords exploit their advantages ruthlessly... but hey... ray guns.

I mean seriously, do we control these cameras at all? No. They're not controlled by the public. The public in fact didn't even want them. They were IMPOSED and they serve the whims of whomever is in charge of the security system.

So we're told "hey good news guys, the upside of the alien invasion is that your alien overlords will occasionally disintegrate the occasionally asshole of your pathetic squishy species. ALL HAIL YOUR TENTACLE MASTERS!"

What the actual fuck.

Re:Why is this a good thing again?

[Karmashock]

You're assuming that anyone would look at stuff like that. They wouldn't.

At best you'd create a lot of videos that no one watches while the elites scour through them using robotic algorithms and sort of paid sweatshop labor to find videos that advance their interests.

In no way is something like this ever going to help the public.

Re:Why is this a good thing again?

[david_thornley]

I'm not completely stable, and I am in a defective state of being. So are you, and everybody reading these words, and everybody else. None of us are perfect. This means that there's going to be a lot of video showing you in a bad light, waiting for somebody to take the time and money to go through them and find that time you got mad at somebody (removed from context, of course), or violated some minor laws, or were a real jerk because you were depressed or upset about something else.

Difference

[RobinH]

There's a difference between a "surveillance society" which is where a small class of people or organizations owns or has access to all the surveillance, or just a "public society" where lots of private individuals have cameras, phones, etc., and decent means of communication. In the latter case, it's the people (society) who actually have the power. It's much more democratic, i.e. "I'm publicly shaming this person because the vast majority of people feel their behavior is unacceptable." In the former, it's about centralized power, i.e. "Make this person's life miserable because they're a threat to my power." I'm all for distributed cameras and communications, I just wish people would keep the data local by default, and not provide it so willingly to 3rd parties to aggregate it.

If you need cameras

[random-toto]

Maybe it's not kindness if you need cameras. Not mentioning all the downsides...

Re:If you need cameras

[GameboyRMH]

Yep if it's done even when nobody's watching, THAT's kindness. If it's only done because there are cameras, that's called fear.

Re:If you need cameras

[Opportunist]

It's like the difference between having moral values and having a religion.

And on the minus side...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While this sometimes pays off, when circumstances line up correctly, it is vital to keep the limitations in mind:

Lower cost has made it much more likely that random bystanders have some level of video recording, rather than none; but entities with ample resources also take advantage of reduced costs, which is why, say, nontrivial areas of the developed world are effectively saturated with automated LPR systems. There is a win for those cases where it previously would have been the word of someone who counts vs. the word of some nobody; but elsewhere reduced costs and improve capabilities make having a big budget and legal power even more useful.

Improved surveillance only changes the game at the 'evidence' stage. If legal, public, or both, standards aren't sufficiently in your favor, improved evidence is anywhere from irrelevant to actively harmful. You can have all the evidence you want; but if the DA refuses to indict, or the 'viral' pile-on targets the victim rather than the aggressor, it doesn't help you much. Had McHenry's tirade been a bit cleverer, or her target a shade more unsympathetic, odds are good that the attendant in question would be being hounded as we speak.

Can encourage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was beaten in 2011 by 2 teenagers, and videotaped(?!) by a 3rd. When I initially filed the police report, it was a simple assault. When the police department found the video, it became a felony.

tl;dr: Stupidity knows now bounds.

--sf

False premise

[Dunbal]

Honestly I think the kind of person who is likely to go off on such a petty rant isn't going to give a damn if there's a camera there or not. Their sense of superiority and ego is such that they don't actually think at any moment that they are wrong, so what difference would a camera make? It's like saying that the guy with anger issues will not have a road rage episode because of a camera. He's not thinking about the camera - he's off in his own little rage world temporarily but completely disconnected from reality.

This is nothing new

[wonkey_monkey]

The human race has been modifying their behaviour* in the face of perceived pervasive surveillance for millenia. I think they used to call it "God."

(* I was going to say "been acting nicer than they otherwise would," but, eh, doesn't always work out that way)

The Reporter Video Wasn't Even An Upside

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great that you can walk in to a private business that has forced you to do business with it (car-towing company), lose your temper in this essentially private setting because they are (in all probability) treating you like shit and/or ripping you off, and have that business post a video of this on the internet without your consent, having edited out the parts of the video where they said/did things that incited you in the first place.

That reporter clearly just lost her temper and was trying to say whatever seemed like it would be most hurtful. It's not clear at all that she is any more elitist than most people in positions of prestige. For all we know, her sentiment could have been justified, and given the apparently predatory towing company she was dealing with, it probably was. If the employee was "just doing her job", but that job involves ripping people off, I have no sympathy. Pretty crazy how people are calling for the reporter's head for this.

Re:The Reporter Video Wasn't Even An Upside

[BarbaraHudson]

That reporter clearly just lost her temper and was trying to say whatever seemed like it would be most hurtful.

In other words, she's an asshole.

It's not clear at all that she is any more elitist than most people in positions of prestige.

Being in a position of prestige is no excuse for acting like an asshole. To the contrary, if your "prestige" depends on your reputation, you'd better watch what comes out of your mouth. Look what happened to (now former) Clippers basketball team owner David Sterling after he went on a racist rant.

High-tech "An armed society is a polite society"

[redelm]

... from Robert Heinlein. In both cases, the consequences of rude behaviour are much greater.

I worry most about the years-later consequences of surveillence on politicians and other leaders. They all seem to have sordid episodes, and this leaves them highly succeptible to hidden blackmail/pressure by data-holders. We will never know how they are manipulated and abuse their wide discretionary powers.

Not to protect "the little children" but to protect "the pervy pols."

Waiting for those upsides...

[WaffleMonster]

All I see is the rise of Mob rule and lack of mutual respect and tolerance.

Force is the least effective means of promoting "good" behavior and Mob rule is an ineffective means of governance.

I am increasingly worried about the role Media whoring for attention and profit is having on society.

You Are, But So Are They

[Bob9113]

TL;DR: The upside of being under continuous surveillance is that everyone else is too. It is the same argument as, "Because terrorists might get caught."

Here's just one example of the downside: Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and similar will all have zero attendance as soon as employers stop hiring people who have been seen at an AA/NA meeting. That will be a reality within ten years, as private license plate tracking databases come online.

Doubt it? Ask yourself this: Would a typical "profit over everything" manager hire someone he knew was in NA? That guy is going to abuse these databases as they come online. That is reality.

It's nowhere close to that rosy

[cfalcon]

It's nowhere close to as nice as OP portrays.

The example brought up- the ludicrous cuntly behavior of Britt going off on some poor schmuckette- is gratifying because she's "getting hers". But, lets consider a few things:

1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true.
2- Britt has a job where public relations are extremely important, and is a celebrity (not "was", I'm certainly a lot more interested in someone who openly shits on tow companies, notoriously sketchy organizations that damage vehicles and will tow legal vehicles if they can claim that the little whatever that lets you park legally could be argued to not be perfectly visible, or if can be dislodged in towing- so if she pops up and rants about stuff, hey, I'll watch)
3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal. What if, in addition to the rant delivered by her, we saw EVERYTHING that happened in that business, from the cabs of the tow trucks to the office politics in the back to their normal customer relations? By selecting just what your foes do at a specific time, you obviously gain a great deal of control, because your shit is flushed and theirs is on youtube forever.

The medium benefits of cameras seem to be what we see in Russia from dash cams- inability of insurance companies to welch on payments, and greater evidence of actually criminal dealings on the road.
The biggest benefits of cameras will be their effect on law enforcement, and if we want to actually reap those benefits (instead of just making people who can have a short temper unemployable in even more jobs than they already are), we'll need protections for the numerous police who routinely order people to stop filming (this should not ever be something a policeman can say), attack people legally and extralegally for putting up their crimes, and actually hold them accountable for the absurd beatings that they suddenly started dealing out to poor people and anyone who wouldn't normally be believed in court- beatings that seemingly began the moment that everyone got cameras. Probably those two related, hrm, what's that correlation...

So it doesn't matter that some hot tempered cutie with a media job went off on some random people. That's not really helping society that she can't keep her ESPN job.

The workaround for (1) is that people will act like they are being recorded, which naively means that they will switch from aggression to bating and passive aggression. If they ALSO have cameras (and hidden cameras are cheap, and will become moreso), then the goal becomes to bait the other party to either committing a crime (easier in some situations than others) or crucifying themselves in the court of public opinion. We can laugh at the people who haven't adapted to this new ruleset fast enough, but it's STILL a game, and it will still be won by the same sociopaths that always are good at these games.

(2) is an issue because more and more jobs will fall into this category, resulting in minor altercations yielding a harsh streak of unemployment into a society already hellbent on assuming that ability is immediately rewarded with steady employment. While celebrities have a huge amount of support systems to fall back on ("celebrity does a heel-turn" is not a death knell by any means to their public life), many people do not. The natural assumption of the video seems to be that if someone is caught doing something on tape, that this is representative of their entire life, a brief 30 second temper tantrum serving as a summary of their entire life. This background assumption is based on what USED to be the truth, and the same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of tha

Re:It's nowhere close to that rosy

[BarbaraHudson]

1- Britt had no reason to suspect she was being recorded (beyond the general assumption that any building or person in America *could* be "taping" you now). She acted based on assumptions that weren't true.

Did you watch the video? She was TOLD there was a camera recording her!

3- Who controls the cameras is the big deal.

Moral of the story is - "Don't act like an asshole".

e same logic that the legal system uses to dole out large punishments for minor violations- that cameras (observing agents in general) were so rare that if someone got caught ranting on camera (or speeding on some empty highway) that it serves as a *representation of that person in general*

Not at all. Is serves as evidence that at a particular point someone was acting like an asshole or speeding. What next - would you argue that bank robbers shouldn't be punished because the video of the robbery isn't necessarily representative of their day-to-day behavior, or the rapist caught on camera because he probably doesn't go around raping people on a daily basis?

Re:no... just no..er, yes?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, her car was towed by a company that has a reputation for illegal towing. I had this happen to me once and I wanted to burn down the business with everyone inside.

Having you car towed illegally is a pretty disturbing experience. You know it wasn't parked illegally, yet it's gone. Was it stolen? You call the police, they show up hours later only to tell you it was towed and then leave. You are out hours of time and then you get to the tow company and they want hundreds of dollars. No one in authority cares about it because you got it back and no one was hurt. Let's just call this a "micro-agression"

Fuck them and fuck the attendant, who is probably complicit in the scheme.

Re:I wouldn't call that a "surveillence society"

[Opportunist]

In 1984, people also weren't always under observation by their telescreen. Actually, they almost never were. What made them "behave" was simply that they didn'T know when they would be.

So just not having a camera "trained on you" every second of your life doesn't make the total surveillance any less invasive. When you cannot tell whether you have privacy, you have none.

Ask the former residents of East Germany

[Taco Cowboy]

They were under constant watch of the Stasi

Why don't you guys go ask the former residents of the East Germany and see if they prefer to be "kinder to each others" when under surveillance or to have their liberty back ... even if they have to endure the consequence of having more people being rude to each others

TFA should be a warning sign - that TPTB is actively trying to inject a meme / an idea into people's mindset that the society would be somehow *nicer* if everybody are under surveillance

I thought you guys are supposed to have above average IQ, but looking at the way you guys are commenting ... sigh !

Re: Ask the former residents of East Germany

[einar.petersen]

Sorry to see you have a minus one on your comment I was also completely shocked to see an attempt to selling the surveillance state as a positive. You are spot on with your comment regarding STASI and the fools that don't realize this will mourn as the people trying to wake them up are silenced, re-educated, dissappeared, suicided, or in other ways removed from "society" once democracy as they thought they knew it finally crumbles. Kudos to you for standing up like you do!

Re:Ask the former residents of East Germany

[fustakrakich]

Well, I think the idea is to put the authorities under the same surveillance they would have us under. Closely watching the police and politicians would definitely make them act 'nicer'.

Re: Ask the former residents of East Germany

[Garridan]

What? There are upsides to everything! "Excuse me, Office of the Panopticon! How does this outfit look?" "It's okay, but your shirt is untucked in the back. I'm not a big fan of the yellow, but historic data seems to show that your style works for you. Good luck on your third date tonight! You might want to pick up the tab tonight, though. Your intended has told her friends that you might be a cheapskate."

BWAH

[aliquis]

All I want to say is it will make people less tolerant about criticism.

We already have society full of pricks who can't accept having their stupid religious idea ridiculed. And then they want to go out kill people because of that.

HURRAY! SUCH PROGRESS!

So what if I call someone an idiot. That's my opinion.
Reasonable people should understand anyone can have any opinion and that's ok. One can have different ones. Just because I think you're an idiot doesn't necessarily mean you are one according to someone else. Live with it.

Also chances are I'll say what's in my mind anyway because I'm used to do it.

If I where to hold back maybe I to would have to resort to go around killing people I didn't liked because there was no way to argue things.

I'm glad I can use my voice. Or fingers.

As for your comment parent yeah it suck that stuff is around forever. Here in Sweden we've got this communist criminal group who mine their own data to use against people of what they believe is the wrong opinion.

People complain if someone who don't like immigrants is in court where immigrants are tried for something possibly even whatever they should be allowed to stay or not.
But then again what if it was people who think we should have no borders and that hiding immigrants was ok and that communism was great? Those people exist too.

Shouldn't the important part be that people could divide their interest and the law and judge based on the law instead?

Anyway, to have this private interest group run around throwing old data around like it matter is just ridiculous.

And yeah. I'll still say what's on my mind thank you.

People go like "Oh people are bullied much more now" or whatever, "lots more hate reported", yeah, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE AWARE / IT SIT AROUND. So freaking what?

I doubt people behave worse. It's just that if I write on a wall on the Internet that you suck then it may stay around forever whereas if I just tell someone then the message is kinda lost after that. Or at least very hard to pick up again.

You know...

[EmeraldBot]

I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public. Many, especially those of us from the west, often wonder why people from Russia are so guarded. You want to know why? Because the alternative is rotting in jail, or even being assassinated. What this idiotic, moronic , IGNORANT author proposes is a complete regression of 300 years of progress towards a free society, and not just in America. If he can't stand people being impolite, then very well - I expect him to thank me when he is inside a gulag for going to a gay rights meeting, just as he had to thank me when I hauled off his grandmother for being related to him (she's equally guilty by being in his immediate family). THAT is the society he will live in, but at least he'll never half to bear the terrible injustice of someone calling him an idiot. And now I think I know why he's called that.

Re:You know...

[Mandrel]

I've once had the fortune (misfortune?) of living in East Germany for a year, back when the Berlin Wall existed. Do you want to know what living surveillance state is like? It's a place where you are ALWAYS on guard. You can never be honest with anyone - your teacher in school could be with the government, your best friend could be undercover, even your own family could be recruited. You have to bottle up everything inside yourself, and you present this lovely facade to the public.

This need to be too nice is also true of non-anonymous forums like Facebook, where there's a split between anodyne comments and over-the-top complaints. The former comes about because no-one wants to be accused of being a hater or a whinger, and wants to maximize their "likes", so nearly all comments are content-free sunshine and roses. But once the target is a corporation or a prominent person who may have done something wrong, everyone smugly gangs up and lets loose. The middle path of polite and measured criticism is lost, which is where the meat is in any discussion.

Re:You know...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

East Germany indeed had a "surveillance society": asymmetric information government in which the state acquired great amounts of information on the citizens, and recorded and taped its citizens. East Germany also did what is typical of surveillance societies: it restricted the ability of private citizens to record and gather information.

A company using private security cameras on their private property, or a student or motorist using their cell phone cameras, to record others on their own property or in public is the opposite of a surveillance society; it's an essential part of living in a free society.

Re:Yeah. Totalitarian dictatorships have upsides t

[gweihir]

Actually, in typical totalitarian societies, drug dealers usually make arrangements with the "authorities". The thing is that totalitarian societies care not one bit about the welfare of their citizens, they only keep up appearances. What then happens in addition is that everybody on drugs is known to the authorities and if any of them ever voices a critical thought, they will be publicly crucified. All that are behave like the sheep they are supposed to be are left alone.

So, no, expecting that crime against citizens is less in authoritarian societies is not realistic. The one exception are some theocracies and quasi-theocracies where they are true believers and even see thinking anything else than the church/party line is a capital offense. There you actually may get less crime. The cost is extreme, though.

Re: no... just no..er, yes?

[ShanghaiBill]

BM was parked in a lot whose business had closed two hours earlier.

If the business was closed, then what was the harm in her parking there?
Did the business complain, or did the towing company take her car on their own initiative?
Is there any regulatory limit on how much a towing company can demand from car owners?
Does the business get a kickback, for their participation in this extortion racket?