Birth of a New Philosophy: Surveillance by Consent

[celtic_crippler]

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible … Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”
‘Politics and the English Language’, George Orwell (1946)

“Surveillance by Consent”…Sounds kosher, don’t it? Of course it does!

It’s not often that you get to witness the birth of a new philosophy but that is what we are told is at the heart of the new Surveillance Camera Code of Practice published by the UK’s Home Office this month [2]. Drum roll please, here it is, the new philosophy – “Surveillance by Consent”.
Now as new philosophies go it’s not the best and it’s not really new, nor is it a philosophy. In fact it’s more of a slogan, or more precisely a propaganda slogan. And what it contains a ready-made judgement to save you the trouble of thinking about the issue at hand, in this case surveillance. Surveillance you are told is by consent. You need not worry how consent is achieved or what that really means. You can rest easy knowing that the word “surveillance” which was sometimes considered controversial now has a positive sounding partner “consent” – which is a good thing. Hooray that’s that thorny issue sorted.

Indeed… Big Brother is watching you more closely than ever.

But is there actual “consent” here? Wouldn’t actual consent involve meaningful debate about whether the continued in-depth digging into our privacy was worth trading off hard-won freedoms?

Shouldn’t “consent” be voluntary and not simply assumed?

If you believe that consent is something that should be given voluntarily and not something that can be taken by bureaucratic thieves in the night then make your voice heard. If you live in England or Wales then start by telling the Home Office what you think (details of how to respond are at the end of this article). If you live elsewhere in the world – watch out, “surveillance by consent” is no doubt coming to your country soon. If you do nothing, your inaction will be taken as your consent to be surveilled.

America, the drones are already in the air.

Good read: http://www.disinfo.com/2013/03/the-manufacture-of-surveillance-by-consent/

 

[Big Don]

Not fighting back equals consent?
You heat up the tar, I'll get the feathers

 

[Xue Sheng]

I was security for a NYS office over 15 years ago and you know what, most of Albany around the capital and state offices had cameras on it.

It all comes down to where you can reasonably expect privacy and in the middle of a town or city you cannot, in your home yes, but step outside...nope.

Over 25 years ago I was in a college class the prof was previously a satellite imagery guy for the US gov..... yup they could see you then too.

This is not new. just people finally noticed

 

[Tgace]

Are drones with cameras fundamentally different from police helicopters?

 

[Carol]

Are drones with cameras fundamentally different from police helicopters?

Absolutely, in the same way that a GPS black box placed on a vehicle is fundamentally different than an officer or team of officers following a person of interest.

The latter requires significant coordination and expenditure of resources, which helped assure that such surveillance tactics would only be used in matters of significance. Take away the cost factor and you create an environment where such tactics will be used far more indiscriminately.

 

[Tgace]

Absolutely, in the same way that a GPS black box placed on a vehicle is fundamentally different than an officer or team of officers following a person of interest.

The latter requires significant coordination and expenditure of resources, which helped assure that such surveillance tactics would only be used in matters of significance. Take away the cost factor and you create an environment where such tactics will be used far more indiscriminately.

While I agree with the spirit of what you say, I don't believe that is a legal distinction. There is a considerable amount of Fourth Amendment case law that applies to this subject. Is the surveillance capable of searching private areas for which the police would otherwise need a warrant? That distinction is why I can watch your house with binoculars and even look through your windows legally, but I can't use thermal imaging tech without a warrant. It's also why I can fly over your house w/o a warrant but cant hover in your backyard to look into your window. A drone at the same height as a chopper using similar video tech? Or hovering in your backyard looking into your basement with thermal? Very different.

I need a warrant to PLACE a GPS device on your property. Legally THAT is the difference between GPS and my following you in my car.

While I'm not saying I'm all FOR drones, I don't know if there truly IS a fundamental legal distinction between them and choppers. I CAN see some limitations being imposed because some can hover at your window which is different from a camera at 500 feet above your home.

Some interesting reading on the subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-the-fourth-amendment/

 

[Xue Sheng]

Absolutely, in the same way that a GPS black box placed on a vehicle is fundamentally different than an officer or team of officers following a person of interest.

The latter requires significant coordination and expenditure of resources, which helped assure that such surveillance tactics would only be used in matters of significance. Take away the cost factor and you create an environment where such tactics will be used far more indiscriminately.

Too late, already done, (malls, banks, stores, parking lots, building exteriors, roadways, bridges, etc.) and it has been that way for years. Heck some government offices (and likely private too) use hidden surveillance cameras in the offices. Like I said, people are just beginning to notice and of course now it is a drone that you might see as opposed to the mounted cameras most pay no attention to at all. Back in my state security days, when I was not in the job and out I made a game out of finding the cameras. Now they are mounted all up and down major roadways and no one seem to notice or care.

 

[celtic_crippler]

NDAA pretty much killed the need for warrents...

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Orwell's predictions are coming to fruition and it may be too late to stop them.

 

[Tgace]

NDAA pretty much killed the need for warrents... .

Not for me it didn't.

 

[grumpywolfman]

Not for me it didn't.

I wish that there would be accountability of those who do not acquire warrants for what they do; the Private Investigators who are hired by powerful companies or unscrupulous individuals to destroy the lives of people who they perceive as potential threats, or just for the fun of it? As long as the money flows, they will continue without question or legal consequence for as long as a duration as their client is willing to pay for (wiretapping, thermal imaging tech., parabolic microphones, binoculars, trailing, decoys, slander, harassment, entrapment, gang stalking, recruiting the public, character assassination).

Surveillance by consent?
No, never that. But if you're a target, there eventually comes a time when you give up trying to stop them, attempt to regain your sanity, and move on with your life the best that you can; in other words, you learn to live with it.

 

[Tez3]

Considering here that we have local council planning offices telling people to take down cctv cameras and council meetings are full of people demanding that cctv cameras are put up on streets I think it's a bit more than surveillance by consent. We have councils trying to take cameras down due to huge budget cuts and the local people protesting.
Certain newpapers such as the Daily Fail would have you think we being spied on but in truth more and more Brits are the people spying! Demand for cctv systems for homes is higher than ever and councils are having to find money they don't have to maintain systems they don't want. sometimes things aren't always as they seem or how you want them to seem!

http://www.1in12.com/publications/cctv/bubble.html

http://www.payasyougomonitoring.com/blog.php?post=47

 

[celtic_crippler]

Not for me it didn't.

Give it time. The precedent has been set.

As evidenced in previous posts on this thread it has been pointed out that Americans have been slowly acclimated to accept these "invasions".

No one would accept such drastic changes over night and if anyone learns from history it is those who hold power. They understand their vision of the future will require a strategy of continued "inch-by-inch" implementation.

 

[Carol]

While I agree with the spirit of what you say, I don't believe that is a legal distinction. There is a considerable amount of Fourth Amendment case law that applies to this subject. Is the surveillance capable of searching private areas for which the police would otherwise need a warrant? That distinction is why I can watch your house with binoculars and even look through your windows legally, but I can't use thermal imaging tech without a warrant. It's also why I can fly over your house w/o a warrant but cant hover in your backyard to look into your window. A drone at the same height as a chopper using similar video tech? Or hovering in your backyard looking into your basement with thermal? Very different.

I need a warrant to PLACE a GPS device on your property. Legally THAT is the difference between GPS and my following you in my car.

While I'm not saying I'm all FOR drones, I don't know if there truly IS a fundamental legal distinction between them and choppers. I CAN see some limitations being imposed because some can hover at your window which is different from a camera at 500 feet above your home.

Some interesting reading on the subject:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/20/will-drones-outflank-the-fourth-amendment/

I don't think I disagree with you. Prior to the SCOTUS decision in (I think) January of 2012, police officers did not need a warrant to place a GPS device on a person's property...unless there were local restrictions that said otherwise, but such restrictions were not commonplace, IMO. Now a warrant is requited.

The SCOTUS decision was a result of changing technology bringing about discussions and decisions/changes in the law. Personally I think drones should bring about another such look, because drones are different from security cameras. Laws end up being based on the known, not the unknown.

This stems to my concern -- the impact of technological understanding on the populace -- including our elected reps at all levels. don't think we had the same kind of gap with GPS tracking devices since consumer GPS devices for the car have ubiquitous and most people have an understanding of what they are and what they do.

There are lots of folks out there that do not know what drones are, still others may have a conspiracy-theory or sci-fi view of them. Perhaps some folks have a "can't-happen-here" view of them...thinking that sort of thing only happens in big cities like NYC. I could easily see a desire for drones in all areas, including small cash-strapped towns that have a lot of ground to cover -- especially if DHS shoulders the product cost for local agencies as they did with many Lenco Bearcats.

Personally I feel very confident in saying that the use of drones WILL lead to future legal discussions, but how and when? How widespread will drone surveillance become in that time period?