Watching our Liberties Exit Stage Left

Introduction

I am concerned over video justice whether it is red-light cameras, speed enforcement cameras, or video taping public areas for viewing by law enforcement. The idea of using technology to keep an ever watchful eye on American citizens wrong. Don't misunderstand my intentions, I am not against using technology to help a law enforcement officer do his duty, I am against technology in place of law enforcement officers. I am all for getting a warrant to legally do surveillance of a criminal suspect. I am all for police officers having video camera's in their police cars. I am against the continuous recording of public places on the off-chance it might catch a citizen doing something illegal.

I wrote two columns for the Daily News. Both columns are limited in the number of words allowed. I am posting both columns here in their original unabridged format. As it turns out both columns were written in March. The first in 2009 and the second in 2011.

In my second column I included several quotations from the OPC Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance of Public Places by Police and Law Enforcement Authorities. I like a lot of what it says.
Other links:
Washington State Constitution
Protests Against Surveillance Cameras
Ineffectiveness of Surveillance Cameras
Photo Radar Scam

---

Column #1: Daily News, March 2009.

In October of 2008 the Daily News reported about placing video surveillance cameras in several locations around Pullman. If the cameras are installed we will watch our civil liberties exit stage left.

The proposal seems benign; however, it is anything but. We are told the video would only be recorded and saved for three to four days. The cameras, we are told, would not be monitored. This proposal brings to mind a quotation from Fakediploma.com in an article titled “Washington State Citizens Against National ID”.

Under the guise of safety and security you are asked to give up your most personal information to the government’s safekeeping. Using the governments favorite phrase ‘…the need to know’, we don’t feel the government has - the need to know - such personal information. The fundamental right to privacy is asked to give way in order to achieve the illusion of security.

Don’t mistake this proposal to be on the same level as video cameras in banks, convenience stores, and various other private businesses. The difference between the cameras the city wants to install and those in the above locations are great. The cameras would be on public streets. They would be controlled by the government.

I should be able to drive down the road, in a free country, without being monitored by my government. Our government was set up with the consent of those governed not the other way around.

Many people I have talked to believe that there is nothing wrong with putting surveillance cameras on Greek Row. But that is just the start. Mayor Johnson was even quoted as saying “this would just be the start”. As more funds are available more cameras can be installed. Soon they will be put into my neighborhood and your neighborhood.

Can we really believe that once the cameras are installed that they will never be monitored? According to an article in the Daily Evergreen, Mayor Johnson said the cameras would not be monitored, but only reviewed when a crime happened to try to identify those who committed the crime. But in the Daily News article it was pointed out the cameras could be viewed live the police in their patrol cars.

How long before the city decided that on major weekends the cameras should have someone watching them and dispatching police to suspicious activities? It probably would not be very long after that point of time that we have someone to monitor the cameras on all weekends. At some point, no doubt, there would be a call to expand the coverage of live monitoring of the cameras to include the whole week. We would need to hire some people to watch the cameras to report suspicious activities to the police. Your privacy would soon be in question.

The big issue with the government monitoring the cameras and possessing the cameras and recordings is that, unlike a convenience store, the government has the ability to impose sanctions on people. Those sanctions can be anything ranging from fines to jail time.

What happens when someone uses the freedom of information act to request copies of recordings? What if those recordings show something that you did, which was not criminal in nature, but one that was personal and embarrassing in nature? Could that cause damage to ones reputation?

During the arson fire it was pointed out we might have seen a car pass through the cameras and we could have had a possible suspect. What if you were the suspect? You will have to prove yourself innocent or risk being arrested. No alibi? That’s a problem. The police grill you as to why you were driving at three o’clock in the morning? This is a free country and you should be able to move around as you wish, no suspicion raised and no alibi’s needed.

The loss of personal liberties in the name of safety is not a fair trade off.

Scott McDonald, in the article “Uncle Sam Has All your Numbers“ poses a great point. The focus of the debate must be on liberty and freedom. The question must be: Does the government have any right, whatsoever, to maintain cameras focused on free citizens? The answer is “NO!”

---

Column #2: Daily News, March 2011.
Imagine, if you will, this utopia. It is a place where there are no guns. Everyone has free food, health care, and a place to live. No one is forced to hold down a job. Everyone is safe from crime and there are cameras to watch every move that someone makes. Those cameras are monitored 24/7. Want to live there? We have such a place right here in Whitman County. It is called jail. Sure you are secure, but you surely don’t have any personal liberties.

Unfortunately, the idea of placing government-run video cameras around the city of Pullman has resurfaced. Mayor Glenn Johnson and Police Chief Jenkins both support this issue. I disagree with the government running broad reaching video surveillance against its free citizens.

A number of people who don't see a problem with video cameras bring up two points over and over. One point being that stores and banks use video how is this any different. I argue the difference between the bank and the government is the government has a direct ability to abridge freedom. Point number two revolves around the idea that if you are not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide.

Government monitoring its citizens via video cameras is not about hiding things; it is about our rights explicitly spelled out in the state Constitution. Article 1 Section 7 says in part "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs... without authority of law". Just because someone enters a public space doesn't mean he forfeits his expectation of privacy. One cannot be searched just because he is in public.

An article discussing guidelines for the use of video surveillance by law enforcement in public places exists on the Website for the Office of Privacy Commissioner (OPC) of Canada.

"Video surveillance of public places subjects everyone to scrutiny, regardless of whether they have done anything to arouse suspicion. At the very least it circumscribes, if it does not eradicate outright, the expectation of privacy and anonymity that we have as we go about our daily business.

The medium’s very nature allows law enforcement to observe and monitor the movements of a large number of persons, the vast number of whom are law-abiding citizens, where there are no reasonable grounds to be capturing a record of their activities."

Human's change their behavior when they are being watched. Whether it is seeing a police car and letting off the accelerator when driving down the street or stifling one's own speech when someone approaches. These changes, as noted by the Website, started a business where people can buy faux cameras to make people change their behavior. The OPC's Website continues "For these reasons, there is good reason to believe that video surveillance of public places by the police or other law enforcement authorities has a chilling effect on behaviour—and by extension on rights and freedoms."

My last column came out in March of 2009. In those two years Pullman has neither become more dangerous nor crime ridden. Pullman still has issues with crime, as does every city, but we are not anywhere to the point where the movements of the citizens should be captured on video. "The problem to be addressed by video surveillance must be pressing and substantial, of sufficient importance to warrant overriding the right of innocent individuals to be free from surveillance in a public place." (OPA Website)

One person posed a question to me asking how it is different when a police officer is in public watching people and a video camera is in a public place watching people. The police officer is looking for a criminal activity taking place when he sees none he moves along. At some point in the future he will check back upon the area. A video camera on the other hand is constantly recording all citizens no matter what they are doing.

I would like to close with a final concept as written by the OPC. "Video surveillance of public places nonetheless presents a challenge to privacy, to freedom of movement and freedom of association, all rights we take for granted in Canada [and America]. This is especially true when the surveillance is conducted by police or other law enforcement authorities."

Please stop by http://palousitics.blogspot.com/ where you can read my previous column and this column both unabridged due to the limitation of space.

"You will be assimilated; resistance is futile"

Palousitics contributor Michael O'Neal had a must-read column about liberal collectivism in last Saturday's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

First there was Rev. Wright, but I thought, "Knaves on both sides of the political nave say goofy stuff, so we can't really pin any of that on Obama." Then there was the link with Weatherman bomber William Ayers, but I thought, "Well, gee, it wasn't like Obama was knocking back shots with the guy at Hooters."

No, what did it for me was this statement by Obama: "Our individual salvation depends on our collective salvation." Just eight words, but a trenchant summary of a sociopolitical philosophy that crystallizes the distinction between liberals and conservatives. For conservatives are more likely to take the opposite (and correct) view: that our collective salvation depends on individual salvation. Conservatives believe that the nation can achieve and sustain greatness only by liberating individuals to strive and reach their potential, without the coercive hand of government and haughty elites who believe that only they know the route to the Promised Land.

Since the Magna Carta, the trend line in the West has been the struggle for democracy. Through the American and French revolutions, to the end of slavery, to the liberation of the peoples of Western and then Eastern Europe, the goal has been to wrest power from the hands of those who arrogate to themselves the belief that they know best.

Yet in the West, democracy is fraying, and one is left wondering how long the great experiment in democracy, with its emphasis on the individual rather than the collectivity, can last. Tolerance - highly touted today - for the individual is waning, for individuals can be so annoyingly ... individual. Tolerance applies to my point of view, not that of my neighbor, who ignores the wisdom of the elites. The European Union routinely sniffs at the will of the people, expressed through the democratically elected governments of its member nations, and imposes the judgment and will of a faceless Soviet-style Eurocracy. In Canada, "tolerance" - a value of the collective - trumps the value of freedom of speech - an individual value. The result is statements like this from a member of that nation's ham-fisted human rights commission, which mercilessly hunts down and punishes any kind of perceived "Islamophobia": "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value." Or this from The Atlantic magazine: "The First Amendment is a peculiar and quite possibly outdated feature of the American political system, along the lines of, say, the electoral college or the District of Columbia's lack of congressional representation."

We see this notion - that we're to yield liberties to the collective - in ways large and small. People who claim to be "pro-choice" support ordinances proscribing the use of plastic grocery bags. The global warming scam is at bottom an effort to cajole us into relinquishing our liberties to the Borg, who claim to know better and want to achieve "collective salvation" by telling us what to drive and where to set our thermostats (unless, of course, you're an elite liberal whose yearly utility bills are 10 times the national average). Organizations such as the Pullman Alliance for Responsible Development try to impose the will of a collective on the choices of benighted shoppers - those annoyingly individual individuals.

But there's hope. I had a conversation with a woman who lives near Sandpoint. She's an immigrant, but interestingly, not from an impoverished Third World hellhole. She's from picture-postcard-pretty Switzerland. Puzzled, I asked her why she would move from her beautiful, safe, peaceful, affluent homeland and settle in rough-around-the-edges north Idaho, where, rather than Alpine vistas, we see stacks of discarded tires and rusted '69 Corvairs parked in backyards.

Her response was instructive. Yes, she said, Switzerland is ordered and neat. So is Disneyland. Neighborhoods and city centers are pretty, trains run on time, and the nation's warts are hidden away from tourists and people on sabbatical. But all this comes at a price. You're constantly being watched. Neighbors watch you. Local authorities watch you. Behavior is dictated by codes and laws both written and - more oppressively - unwritten. The pressure to conform is enormous, and stifling. When I first came to America, she said, yes, it was messy, raw, unruly. It lacks the old-world sophistication of European cities, with their cobblestones, cafés, and cappuccinos.

And for the first time in my life, she said, I felt free.

A Victory for Freedom

Back in 2006, opponents of I-933, the Property Fairness Initiative, pooh-poohed the concerns of citizens who felt that government was exercising regulatory takings of their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution through acts such as Critical Areas Ordinances and the Growth Management Act.

Today, the Washington State Court of Appeals has vindicated supporters of I-933. The onerous King County Critical Areas Ordinance that requires rural landowners to keep half of their property covered with vegetation has been struck down. The court held that any such ordinance must be tied to the impact of a specific, proposed development.

Now, the court needs to strike down the unfair and expensive Growth Management Act for the same reason.

Happy 232nd Birthday America!

Enjoy celebrating your freedom today, because I fear that over the next four years, there's going to be a lot less of it.



This video from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation says it all.

Quote of the Day

One cannot permanently overtax a population in which every man bears arms.

- Dr. John Moore, The Case for Compulsory Service, 1779

"Spending without guilt"

Scott Braski of Moscow has a great response to PARDner Don Orlich's recent letter chastizing the Walton Family Foundation (i.e. the family that owns Wal-Mart) for supporting school vouchers.

Braski probably doesn't know Orlich and the PARDners as well as we do. Choice and freedom to them are things that belong in the hands of faceless government bureaucrats, not the individual.

By the way, the Walton Family Foundation's emphasis on providing tuition assistance for low-income families wanting to give their children the best possible education through attendance at a private school came from Sam Walton's son John, who died in an experimental aircraft crash in 2005.

Though he was the son of a millionaire entrepreneur, John Walton dropped out of college, enlisted in the Army, and became a member of the Special Forces. He was wounded in action and won the Silver Star for heroism in Vietnam as part of a top secret, behind the lines MACV-SOG unit, Recon Team Louisiana.

John Walton was a man who knew a thing or two about freedom and fighting for it. How dare some statist educrat question the fact Walton decided to spend some of his birthright on providing opportunity and freedom for others less fortunate.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

There is more to Donald C. Orlich's recent letter to the editor than meets the eye (Opinion, Dec. 14), and I have a few questions. Yes, the wonders of Pullman are due to public education. Yes, most of the students at Washington State University received a public education. No one is debating that. The question is, would it have been possible to have the Pullman public education be any better? If so, would it have been wrong for a set of parents to want a better education for their child?

If I work extra hard so that I can afford to purchase a better-than-public education for my child, should I feel guilty for wanting to invest my money in my own children? I am required to pay taxes that support public schools, even if my kids never set foot in one, so I'm not leaving the poor in the cold. Should someone else have the right to force me to educate my child a certain way?

As for Wal-Mart, Orlich believes the company doesn't have the right to invest its post-tax earnings as it wishes. At what point does one lose that right? When one becomes a certain degree of successful? The harder you work, the more skill you apply, the less control you should have over your own money? One of these omniscient philanthropy committees needs to draw an exact line somewhere, so we all know exactly how successful not to become, and how hard not to work. Is not a good definition of freedom the ability to spend your own after-tax earnings as you wish? Erode that freedom and you'll find you have none left.

Scott Braski, Moscow