Analysis of Surveillance Systems - Essay Example

Analysis of Surveillance Systems Introduction National, social and personal securities have always been a matter of concern to the governments and individuals. Both articles taken up for comparison are about computerised security systems. “Surveillance Technology: If Looks could Kill” by the Economist was published on the 23rd of October, 2008 in The Economist. While to a large extent, it cites the views of supporters to show how the latest developments in security technology promise more effective systems, to some extent, it also reports the views of critics of such technology to show the possible threat to privacy and civil liberty such systems could bring. The views are largely others’ views and The Economist, to a large extent, engages in reporting and discussing the features of the developments rather than criticising the systems. The other article discussed in this paper is “Trading Liberty for Illusions” by Wendy Kamier published in the 2nd issue of the 22nd volume of the Free Inquiry Magazine. The focus of the article is broader than The Economist’s as it argues in general about all security measures and systems. The article rejects security systems as illusions and builds a strong argument against security systems on the basis that they are invasive and repressive and threats to civil liberties. Analysis The strategies used by The Economist makes its article argumentative to some extent and descriptive and expository to a large extent, whereas those employed by Kaminer makes her article more an argument. To illustrate, The Economist’s article on surveillance systems is largely a detailed account of the various developments in the ICT enabled surveillance systems, their features and how they promise to deliver greater and more effective security systems. An example it gives is of security systems capable of studying biometric features or physiological posture and movements. Another is of a system that can identify not only suspicious behaviour but also correlate them to their contexts to help determine whether a particular action or a person is actually a threat. However, Kaminer uses examples of various security systems, both historical and current, not to focus on their description and development, but to use them as evidence to support her thesis and advance her argument that security measures have been only illusions and tramped on liberties. For example, she uses historical evidence to support her argument that repressive security measures have always been taken in the name of national security whenever people “felt frightened or under siege”, but have actually failed to deliver actual security and were questioned decades later (Kaminer, 2008, p.1). A set of examples she gives are of the decisions made by some of the past Presidents of America, such as Franklin Roosevelt who imprisoned Japanese-Americans as a safety measure during the Second World War. She calls this infamous and shameful. The dominant approach taken by the two articles towards the topic they deal with is significantly different. The Economist focuses on the promising nature of such security systems predominantly, while Kaminer is sceptical of such surveillance technologies and argues that the promises made by the security systems are false. To illustrate, The Economist uses the opinion of scientists and researchers who are working on developing security systems which are mostly accounts of promises and hope. An example is the reference to Mr. Morelli’s research to develop surveillance software based on the concept that physiological features such as postures and movements help recognise human intentions and help connect it to a consequent action. Mr. Morelli considers this system to be reliable and is planning to employ it in military operations. In contrast, Kaminer argues how technology offers false promises. She uses the example of a recent report by American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the facial recognition systems used in public places in Tampa, Florida to show the failure of the system. She cites how the system created “false positives” due to technological errors and fails because of human error and abuse of the system (Kaminer, 2002, p.2). She also supports her argument by indicating how database content could be influenced by the assumptions and choices of the police and therefore biased causing even law-abiding people to be identified as suspicious. Kaminer’s use of such examples aims at shattering the promises of security systems and help in advancing her argument. The article by The Economist indicates the necessity for advancement in computerised monitoring and surveillance systems as the basis for ongoing research and development in computerised security systems. It cites the difficulties involved and the limitations of manual monitoring of surveillance cameras, for example in recognising suspicious people or behaviour. It then talks about the computerised systems that are becoming incorporated with capacities to not only recognise faces and objects but also “detect suspicious behaviour”, therefore linking surveillance systems with a real need (The Economist, 2008, p.1). In contrast, Kaminer raises questions about the very basis of security systems let alone their necessity. Her article does not take the systems for granted as The Economist’s does. The Economist showcases a reason in the beginning of its article to show that there is a need for such systems, while Kaminer points out that it is fear not necessity that has driven people to impose security measures or to employ the various ICT enabled surveillance systems. She calls the world that supports such security systems as a “frightened, irrational world” (Kaminer, 2002, p.3). In so doing, Kaminer argues against security systems and their claims, which hints at the key argument of her article, while the Economist does not open with such an argument, to show its objectivity to a large extent and to help serve its main purpose, which is to recount the research developments in technology assisted surveillance systems. The Economist does not merely give an account of advanced technologies, their uses and promises but also presents some arguments of both the supporters and the critiques of surveillance systems. It has to be noted that the opinions are of the supporters or critics in most cases and the author’s views of the security systems are not so strongly expressed other than as brief comment on the supporters’ or critics’ views themselves. For example, in its discussion of a security system that can read micro-expressions of the face, it registers the supporters’ view that such a system “avoids controversial racial profiling: only behaviour is studied” (The Economist, 2008, p.3). The Economist (2008) calls this as “a sticky issue...because cultures—and races—express themselves differently”, which is used mainly to lead onto another research in this area, Judee Burgoon’s research on including cultural input in this security system (p. 3). However, in the case of Kaminer, her article states her argument first and then uses examples and references from other sources to support her argument. Moreover, her arguments are strongly against the security systems and her article is thesis-led than being argumentative and exploring both sides of the issue. For example, when she argues that security surveillance systems invade privacy, she cites the reports of abuse of such technology from ACLU and Detroit Free Press to support her opinion. The reports were about how people handling security cameras, for example, “peer up women’s skirts” to while away their time or how policy, who are supposed to protect people from stalkers, themselves “stalk women and intimidate other citizens” using such technological tools and databases (Kamier, 2002, 2). Therefore, Kaminer’s article centres on her arguments, while the Economist predominantly focuses on others’ views and gives its views sparingly. Moreover, Kaminer’s examples focus on the downside and abuse of computerised security systems, while The Economist’s choice of examples is to illustrate the features and promises of the security systems. Conclusion Overall, Wendy Kaminer’s article is sceptical and led by her strong criticism of security systems including the computerised ones; the Economist focuses more on the promises of the technological advancements in security systems and on the views of others rather than its own. Its account of these arguments is largely cursory because these arguments are not evaluated in depth and as a significantly large part of the article is dedicated to describe the advancements and the promises of computerised surveillance. However, Kaminer’s article is driven by her thesis that security systems are illusions and that they do not enhance security but only threaten civil liberties. The examples and strategies employed by both authors serve the main purpose of their article. References Kaminer, W. (2002). Trading liberties for illusions. The Free Inquiry, 22(2). Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kaminer_22_2.html The Economist. (2008). Surveillance technology: If looks could kill. The Economist. October 23, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/12465303 Read More