Colonialism is commensurate with a constant watch on citizens
Revolutionized technology has increased milestones recorded under the surveillance technology faction. Surveillance intends to gather data and information with the aims of preventing crimes, or in due process of investigating one. Visual recognition software aid in the identification of the people captured on camera. Modern surveillance technology institutes the use of body-worn cameras for law enforcement agencies and the use of drones. This paper aims to establish the benefits of the surveillance technology to society and elaborate on various measures it has been incorporated. Drawing on the feedback from society giving’s on the same, contentions regarding the same will be instituted in the reasons why some view surveillance as modern-day colonialism. Colonialism is commensurate with a constant watch on citizens differing with democratic state laws of privacy and freedom.
Body-worn cameras have instituted an accountability forum for police officers and how they conduct themselves while on duty. One of the principles as quoted by Sir Robert Peel states, “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect”( Chapman,2018). The public is therefore essential in legitimizing police actions. Body-worn cameras were instituted as a means of providing a “real-time” video through which the public gets to be involved in the police actions. BWCs have come in handy especially in the public outrage concerns regarding police mishandling of suspects with regards to racial discrimination. Transparency, offered through the video footage, of use of brute force on suspects can be deliberated upon by the public to either confirm their fears or quiet them down. Many however argue that the videos captured by the BWCs cameras are often viewed from a white settler’s perception and thus many are unable to depict the racial discrimination violence impacted on individuals (Glasbeek, Roots & Alam 2019).
Institution of the BWCs has enhanced the credibility of the police force. Video footage acquired through these cameras stands to act as rock-solid evidence when used in court trials. They can be used against police officers accused of wrongdoing or civilians, thus serving both parties fairly. Whether or not these cameras will enable in the reduction of police brutality remains uncertain. An investigative article highlighted in the Toronto Star, in 2016, stated that most police-based misconduct cases were handled privately. Vice News, initiated similar research through which they concluded the inconclusive statistics given by law enforcement agencies regarding shootings involving police officers (Pabla, 2018). Investing in the body-worn cameras comes as a reprieve to the public that views itself being short-changed when I come to seeking justice against police brutality. Complexities underlying the racial discrimination occasioned by police brunt force cannot be fathomed through video footage. The evidence captured is limited to a specific time considered to be the real-time unfolding of the event while the necessitated brutality lies unhinged (Glasbeek, Roots & Alam, 2019). They are, however, a step in getting the much-needed attention to the occurrences.
Community policing features have been a common undertaking in various states in the country. Policing initiatives have been made easier by the introduction of modern-day surveillance measures. Peel further made a proclamation saying “the police are the public and the public are the police” (Spiller & L’Hoiry, 2019). The task of maintaining public protection seemingly lies in the cooperation of both the public and law enforcement agencies. In the need to offer extra assurance to the public, CCTV cameras have been installed and the mandated use of drones (which hover above areas recording data) was implemented. Some watch groups have been liberalized to the extent of sharing wrongdoings captured on cameras on platforms where the police and other community policing members partake. An example of such a platform is the “Pickpocket Watch” (PW), a website in London that charges fees to members to join, where business owners share footages of criminal actions within their premises. The information is then given to police agencies and other members within the group (Spiller & L’Hoiry, 2019).
As result crime rates have substantially reduced in areas with such measures. The watch groups have in most cases been attributed to the growing of amicable relations existing between the public and the police. Some cases though indicate to these watch groups incrementing existing tensions between both parties due to existing tensions. Civilians watch groups, especially those using drones to facilitate surveillance of their neighborhoods have been accused of intruding on an individual’s privacy. Justice Scalia quoted, “there is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few to protect the privacy of all” (Sexton, 2016). The watch groups, therefore, face hindrances in using drone technology in ensuring public safety. The police face the same in their incorporation of drone technology as a surveillance tool. The use of drones in surveillance is technically not regarded as a form of conducting a “search” into an individual’s home. There is therefore no need to obtain a search warrant before using drones which creates tension among the public on the infringement of their privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment indicates that conducting a “search” in the absence of a warrant unless within the stipulated exceptions is a violation. With the use of drones not being regarded as “searches”, the public fear the law enforcement agencies may ultimately misappropriate the use of this technology (Sexton, 2016).
Drone technology has also been the forefront in maintaining close border control of the country. Drones are used to patrol borders as they are easily restrained on surveillance areas and provide accurate images. Mobility enables them to cover vast areas while simultaneously recording information without necessarily being spotted by the public. The drones have been considered to be a “virtual wall” between the United States and other countries. They offer more than security as they bring forth a sense of militarization of border points. The U.S Customs and Border Protection unit (CBP), have already been documented to have at least nine aircraft drones, used to apprehend illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. As far as 2018, the drones had recorded a 0.5 % of arrests made (Bier & Feeney, 2018). The use of this technology has however raised a myriad of concerns within the society. The intensification of surveillance has reduced the chances of refugees seeking aid in other countries. They are thus faced to stay within their countries facing oppression. The few who manage to cross over borders as indicated in Greek-Turkish border opt to use dangerous paths that cannot be detected putting their lives at risk. The number of deaths in the Aegean Sea increased from 59 in 2014 to 806 in 2015, indicating the number of lives lost as immigrants sort to escape surveillance (Loukinas, 2017).
Privacy rights have been a major concern as well to American citizens bordering the country’s borders. Surveillance of border points inevitably crosses over to the recording of the areas around the border. The CBP has also been known to frequently use its drones in operations instigated by other law enforcement agencies. Minimal oversight is undertaken in monitoring the conduct of these drones used countrywide. Citizens are denied their rights to privacy as the surveillance is done under Government Issue. No law prohibits the CBP from conducting this surveillance without warrants. In approximately three cases the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of aerial surveillance without warrants (Bier & Feeney, 2018). Privacy erosion is slowly becoming a norm, a situation which if not quickly monitored is bound to fester contentions between the public and federal agencies. Communities get adversely affected as privacy erosion leads to detrimental effects in undertaking their rights to expression and assembly. Constant surveillance impacts their need in enhancing their human rights. Normalization of this constant surveillance can result in constant obstruction of fundamental human rights (Loukinas, 2017).
Surveillance as a means of offering fundamental assistance to law enforcement agencies in maintaining law, peace, and order is beneficial. The community not only holds the enforcement agencies accountable but the credibility of the judicial system is witnessed. Crossing the line, however, where this surveillance infringes on basic human rights should not be taken on a light note. Especially when in the case of drone use there is no law guaranteeing possession of warrants before surveillance is conducted. Measures should be instituted to ensure surveillance does not cause tension among the public, by ensuring surveillance tools can be legally restrained in certain cases. The intensified border point surveillance, beneficial in protecting the country, should be conducted in a manner through which refugees seeking asylum are not hindered entry on a human rights basis. Agencies intending to use drones in conducting their activities should give public briefings; where the public is made aware of the technology to be used and the information intended to be collected. Being transparent with the public with facts beforehand eases the tension that would have otherwise culminated with the public being ignorant. Action should however be taken to ensure before drones are used in surveillance of law-abiding citizens warrants are obtained.