Themes from this article:
Points inferred indirectly:
Summary:
The main points made in an article:
Security system impresses US officials, a special report on the terrorism crisis by Stuart Millar published in the Guardian on Tuesday September 25 are summarised as follows:
American authorities are committed to deploying a relatively new combination of software and surveillance technologies in response to the attacks of September 11th as part of an airport security review.
The system under consideration, known as FaceIt, is designed to identify known suspects, through comparison of a person's face against a database of facial images, it does not require the cooperation of the subject, and may not even generate irrefutable evidence in adverse conditions, such as those that exist in many airports, which would increase the risk of false identifications.
This development is being driven by political interests and could be implemented on mass, to form an equivalent to the British ring of steel, supposedly for our safety and protection to help law enforcement track known subjects. But once in place it's use will invariably be extended over time to infringe upon the populous without our consent or knowledge.
The question is that of proportion there must be a balance between liberty and control. It should be noted that the current increase in the number of youths waring hoods is possibly a direct result of the introduction of CCTV systems.
Abstract:
The populace of an informed society would generally resist even the proposal of any potentially repressive technology such as the FaceIt facial recognition system, with the capacity to indiscriminately report on the movements of any subject, especially when these technological developments are being driven by political interests.
However such fears are currently being circumvented by the stronger feelings of national insecurity, which are also causing fundamental adjustments in political reasoning of the United States authorities whom are by implication encouraging development of technologies previously believed to be technically and socially unjustifiable.
The United States goverment:
Is committed to deploying a derivation of traditional surveillance technology, in response to a review of airport security in lite of the attacks of September 11th, as a measure to help prevent simular incidents in the future. This may be a futile gesture as they are looking at technology to identify known suspects, the problem is that this is not very useful as it is the unknown terrorists that the authorities need to be conce ed about.
Technology:
This is a relatively new combination of software and surveillance technologies, the basic components of the FaceIt system under consideration have been about for years, the system is designed to identify known people in public, this could be implemented to form an equivalent to the British ring of steel and notwithstanding a highly unlikely series of events resulting in absolute control of this type of technology, invariably it will find other uses. For example, marketing research is frequently carried out via the use of surveys. It would be a trivial matter to use such a powerful security system to generate statistical data for analysing consumer trends.
This technology may be able to capture and analyse an image of your face, identify you from a see of people, read your face and even infer things from your body language, but the context outside the view of the cameras and the essence of the moment will be lost forever.
Effectiveness:
The efficiency of any technology is a function of firstly its inherent advantages over traditional methods and secondly whether its use would solve more problems than it would create.
Automation of surveillance operations may reduce part of the administration required, through effective communications and more centralised control, than is possible with human surveillance. The implication being that reduction in the time necessary to complete inconsequential tasks (moving paper around) allows more effective use of the staff resources.
However most law enforcement technologies, including standard CCTV security cameras are only effective with the cooperation of the people, these systems are often useless against those with criminal intent, and this technology does not generate irrefutable evidence in adverse conditions, such as those that exist in many airports, which would increase the risk of false identifications. The problem is that false identification by a person does not involve the implied reputation of technological accuracy.
Freedom of actions:
Absolute freedom would require the absence of any controls, legal of otherwise, this would amount to anarchy. Thus despite being free to do as we peace, we would, ironically, not have the ability to act upon our pleasure, as our lives would be consumed with the nauseate of saying alive! This is in direct contrast with what we are able to accomplish with in the restrictions of society, as a result of the opportunities such restriction creates.
Implications:
The implications of expediency adopting such systems are numerous fighting terrorism notwithstanding, there are many as yet unresolved questions as to the uses of a system designed to infringe upon the populous without the consent or knowledge of these people whose faces are captured. As logs as there are successive gove ments, that take control and change policies, the uses of such tools will also be continually changing.
The problems arise when one considers the wider effects that unwanted surveillance may have, fore example democracy is in part based on the principle that groups can develop views in insolation from goverment.
One can extrapolate from historical events such as the development of Atomic weapons, to save thousands on both sides by ending the second would war without invading Japan The plans for which were stolen be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which started a sequence of events that untimely ended in the current situation where several minor nation have the ability to start a chain reaction that would literary destroy the world.
Data protection laws:
The American people have built into there laws safeguards that could reasonable be used to help prevent the uncontrolled spread of privative systems. We in direct contrast have no rights built rights to protect the privacy of information apart from those set into the data protection legislation which maybe a futile gesture as there are get out glasses for anything evan remotely related to law enforcement.
Innocent Majority:
Should this severance technology be implemented anywhere, the unique situation will be created where information will be collected and processed without the individual's knowledge and will be used without the individual having consent. The Data protection Act may apply, providing at least some basic rights, (no other statutory right in English law to personal privacy exists).
Ethical Dilemmas:
In a stable society the freedom of the individual can not be absolute, there must be a balance between liberty and control. It is conceivable that there would be no civilised society without a govement able to curtail liberty to a reasonable degree. The question is that of proportion technology can be use as a tool for control, however over use of such technologies implies oppression.
Any technology can effect a society in significant ways. Fore example increasingly travail bits of data are collected, transferred precessed and used without the individual's knowledge, this is a situation in which people can be completely manipulated by technology and it has long been the case that legal decisions lag behind technical developments.
Conclusions:
There is an old Buddhist proverb that states "To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell". Words of wisdom and of waing as within computerisation lies such a key.
The implication is that nearly everything has some kind of cost to it, new technologies are not created instantaneously, so the consequences of such new systems are also not instantaneously realised, if we choose to ignore certain circumstances in fever of expedient action, in the end, the full implications will be realised, unfortunately too late.
As implied above, the events of September 11th are important, these events have almost certainly changed things forever. The question is that of proportion, this is what will determine whether the have won or not. Especially when these systems are idolised and become more important then the humans that they exist to serve, we know from history that this sequence of events inevitably fall back upon and destroy its makers in the end. Such subject have as yet been sadly lacking in our studies thus.
Technology is intrinsically neutral, how it is used determines if it is a force for good or evil, if a technology offers savings to one segment of society, some cost may be exacted ageist another. The Bible will teach us that we are to count the !
cost of our commitments. Is there a price tag for your soul? Jesus asks the most profound question "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul in hell forever" Jesus is asking if we have really thought about costs; spiritual and material. (Jesus said, Matthew 16:26).
As long as we can justify the cost in terms of how it allows us it feel safer, then we are free because we believe the gove ment is curtailing our liberty to allow a better quality of life. However, if as a society we accept invasive methods of protection then we surrender a little more freedom to choose how to five as we see fit and not as other would dictate. This includes the right to life without others watching our every move.