New Media & Society Blog - y39

1. When you consider privacy concerns in contrast to (the very real) safety concerns in West Philadelphia, is it any surprise that the cameras are everywhere? Aside from being developing scholars, as citizens what is your balancing equation on privacy versus surveillance in public spaces?

That's the crux of the issue isn't it. The balancing act between safety and privacy. It is an issue the courts have been dealing with recently in cases involving the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The Bush Administration Justice Department in trying to argue that blocking mechanisms for pornographic material are ineffective subpeonad a number of ISP's and Google demanding they turn over all their customers search activities for a specified period of time. Some complied easily and some balked because of the privacy concerns. However, the primacy of protecting children should outweigh the privacy and first amendment rights of citizens. At least that's what the government is arguing. Of course protecting children should outweigh privacy, however, mechanisms should be put in place to completely anonymize the searches. As you may know, Google and the government came to an agreement to anonymize and severely cut down the number of searches they requested. By the way the Supreme Court has ruled COPA unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates first amendment speech protections but says little about privacy concerns.

While ‘the right to be left alone’ may be an enduring standard in terms of privacy, there is no similar koan that describes the value of freedom in public space. How should legal protection for actions in public space be phrased/construed/developed?

That's a tricky question, considering that to many, this comes down to an issue of who belongs in public space. Some public areas are specifically designed to discourage certain activities, such as putting armrests on benches to discourage homeless people from sleeping across them. Putting up cameras is arguably the new stage of keeping away "undesirables."

Part of the issue, then, is what actions and people in public space we want to defend. Realistically speaking, will the same act of asking for spare change be tolerated when it comes from someone in a nice jacket but not tolerated when it comes from someone in ratty old clothing? Will people find cameras sufficient if all they do is record evidence to use against criminals later, rather than actively give the opportunity to intervene before seemingly likely crimes?

I'd like to see how the camera technology actually functions that renders people as mere shapes, unrecognizable by race or other detail that may be used to discriminate. I think I might feel better about using cameras to stop "pre crime" if I knew everyone were going to be treated the same.

When you consider privacy concerns in contrast to (the very real) safety concerns in West Philadelphia, is it any surprise that the cameras are everywhere? Aside from being developing scholars, as citizens what is your balancing equation on privacy versus surveillance in public spaces?

I think the biggest problem with CCTV cameras and the privacy of citizens is not how the cameras impact the power dynamics between the watchers and the watched, but how the placement of cameras in some neighbourhoods marks them as important and the absence of cameras in other neighbourhoods marks them as lost causes. I am most concerned about how CCTV cameras have re-emphasized territorial boundaries between safe public spaces and unsafe public spaces. I'm very aware of how the absence of cameras in neighbourhoods deemed unsafe has only served to further stigmatize them as dangerous. And, I am concerned about how the extension of place to an individual's identity can ultimately stigmatize an individual.

If I live at 36th and Chestnut, I understand myself to be deemed worthy of protecting (even if that means I must be objectified). If I live anywhere beyond 40th and Lancaster, for example, the absence of cameras tells me that I’m not worthy of protection and that the state or state-corporate enterprise (ie. UPenn) doesn’t care about my safety and my rights. Ultimately, I am granted the privileges of citizenship if I'm on camera. Thus, I would suggest that your question about balancing privacy and surveillance in public spaces only pertains to those of us who continue to be deemed full citizens. It seems to me that it is a privilege to get to ask these sorts of questions. As a citizen and as a scholar, I would argue that the rights of citizenship must be extended to everybody before we can ask what balancing equation is acceptable. Thus, I suppose, I would argue that CCTV cameras would have to be erected in more public spaces before such a question can be properly explored. I would argue that privacy isn't just about turning cameras off, it is also about turning cameras on. If we think about how group privacy is linked to territory, than the stigmatization of space threatens the right to be let alone of those who live in stigmatized spaces. If cameras are “stigmatizing agents”, then both their absence and their presence threaten privacy. I would like to see more scholars and developing scholars think about a balancing equation that takes the privacy rights of those who are watched and those who nobody really cares about watching into account.

Ultimately, I’m arguing that you are right in suggesting that there are very real safety problems in West Philadelphia and that it isn’t a surprise that cameras have been erected around the universities to protect “citizens”. These cameras, while they do make me feel safer, are reinforcing stereotypes (usually racist) about West Philadelphia and, more importantly, perpetuating two distinct levels of citizenship that lead to horrible inequalities. Thus, the absence and presence of cameras in different parts of West Philadelphia ultimately continues the context in which very real safety concerns exist.

g14

Your comments are very interesting & I agree that the allocation of cameras to some spaces and others does reinforce existing social inequity. Why not camera up the worst areas of N.Philly before spreading cameras across the center of Penn's campus? Clearly because there is a calculus for determining what cost outlay is appropriate for the territory at risk, right? And non-Penn areas (regarding this case) simply aren't seen as worthy of the $$$.

So, yeah--I see your point on that side. Another, somewhat conflicting issue, is the extent to which placing cameras in 'worse' areas would be useful. Would cameras in N.Philly protect and serve anyone or would they merely be a finger in the dam? Further down that road, would cameras in parts of W or N.Philly stand a chance of surviving? Basically, the human/structural foundation that's necessary for cameras to play a productive role doesn't seem to exist...

To your point about being devalued as a human by the presence/lack of cameras: I see and agree with you, but I wonder how many other people think about these things. I feel like it's quite possible that large groups of people, particularly the 'forgotten' people in the areas left out, actually do have this feeling--but those of us living in covered territory either take the cameras for granted or feel utterly entitled to them. Since the people in the covered territories have better access to those in power/allocating the cameras, this perspective is heard--while the other 'devalued' perspective is likely not heard. Which speaks to a more basic political-economic divide...

Let me be straightforward. I prefer safety in West Philadelphia. As you may know, there are huge gap in risk perception between social groups. The point is that social minorities are more susceptible to risks. West Philadelphia, as you know, was quite notorious in high crime rate etc. So, it is quite natural that UPenn has a number of CC TV acorss the campus.

Then, what is your alternative way to increase security in Penn instead of increasing number of security personnel and CCTV?

Sometimes, it seems that we should decide between security and privacy. And, it depends on the context.