Should the government record every phone conversation, every email, every everything, because "privacy is already lost"?

I want the government to have the tools they need to catch criminals as much as anyone - but I don't want to live in a society that's essentially become a well-appointed prison, no matter how nice the warden might be.

Despite the old cliche, freedom *is* free. It's security that bears a cost. I can't say for sure where the line should be between the two, but it needs to be drawn with reason, not fear.

We probably need to install cameras in every vagina so that we can record the terrorists as they're being born.

I was at Sea Tac Airport the other day. One sign said that if you're under 12, you can keep your shoes on. Another said if you're over 75 you could keep your shoes on. What makes someone more of a threat once they hit 12 and less of one after they turn 75?

Did you know that the fence surrounding the White House wasn't always there?

Early Presidents would invite the general public to join the President at the White House for brunch. Anyone and everyone was allowed in. People used to hold picnics on the White House lawn during good weather. It was the People's House, and therefore, public property.

Then came the Pierce Administration. A group of drunken Whigs attacked the White House after the POTUS threw his support behind a national bank. So, they erected a security fence.

The Secret Service came about after Lincoln had been assassinated. When labor struggles turned violent in the 1880's, the Pinkerton Detective agency found a new market, and they later gave rise to the FBI.

Every time we have made a step in this direction, that step was spurred by an act of mass violence. And only a few times has that mission creep been checked, such as when the Church Committee investigated the CIA and Ford passed an executive order banning assassinations. But it took the Nixon Scandal to create the public pressure that brought all that about.

Your brother wasn't psychic. He knew this was coming because this is how it always comes. And if you're afraid that civil liberties will be further abrogated in response to this bombing, you are correct.

I imagine that if the news about Seattle drones had broken after this bombing rather than before it, opposition to the drones would have been nearly nonexistent.

Americans are pussies, which explains all the guns.

Thoughtful post with some tough questions. I don't know where to draw the line either, but I care less about cameras in shared, public spaces than I do about surveillance of my private, personal actions like phone calls, emails and Internet use.

Screw background checks. The government should have a drone for every gun owner. Freedom isn't free.

Why should I be under surveillance if I don't own a machine for killing other humans?

It's a fine line between being tracked and being trackable. I'm all for the latter, but don't know how you get to the latter without providing opportunity for the former.

I'm totally fine with surveillance cameras. But then, I grew up in Britain. No one ever used a street-snoop camera to take away my freedoms.

Better to sink that state and federal money into better food/meat inspection. Lord knows we need that! People feed themselves and their families potentially hazardous materials everyday. I'm way more concerned about Listeria than some boogeyman around every corner.

@11 Doesn't everyone record every burp and fart already? What else would we all post to youtube?!

Chicago is only on its 21,351st unsolved murder this year, so Emperor Emanuel's camera plan must be working great!

mmmm so much that could be said here, but I think I'll try and keep it simple.

1. I don't have a problem with government cameras in high density areas monitoring traffic, be it auto, bicycle or pedestrian traffic. i.e. watching the streets and sidewalks. I do have a problem with them spitting out traffic fines but I get it, you have to pay for them somehow. It should also be noted that traffic enforcement is the backbone of law enforcement, the trenches, where most of us interact with law enforcement.

2. The first surveillance pictures of the Boston Marathon suspects released by the FBI came from privately owned cameras. I think that is a good thing, video from privately owned cameras has to be willingly turned over or the government needs to jump through a few hoops and have a reason to get them.

3. Cloud storage of private internet data should likewise be protected. Want it Mr. Government man get a search warrant.

4. Stop calling the perpetrators of these CRIMES terrorists, enemy combatants and what have you. Call them CRIMINALS, it is what they are. The Bush administration did this nation and the world a grave disservice in how they responded to 9/11.

Al Qaeda was and is not a government, it is not a State, it is not a Religion, it represents no State, it represent no Religion anymore then Phelps and his idiot family represents Christianity. Stop giving them status they do not deserve. Treat them as a common criminal gang which is what they are.

More importantly refer to them that way, minimize their importance do not give them the status they crave. That of a stature of a nation State on the world stage. That of a representative of a particular religious creed.

It is far past time to dump the Bush/Chaney mindset on how to deal with these things. That mindset has shown itself to be a spectacular waste of time, money and lives.

I say bring on the cameras. If they happen to catch Dominic jerking off in Denny Park, tough shit.

Maybe a camera would have caught all the grammatical errors in Dominic's post????

I'm not sure thnk I have problem with security cameras, depending on how they're used. But oh, for the mental flexibility of republicans clamoring for a total surveillance state while refusing to require background checks for gun buyers.

Well, on the one hand, I was raised to behave a certain way in public, camera or not: no nose picking, head scratching, or shoplifting (among other offenses) and I think that is still a good standard.

On the other hand, I've definitely done some don't-tell-mama stuff right there in the right-of-way, that I am glad there were no cameras to see. But it was aways, on balance, very low impact. No pressure cooker bombs or anything like that.

So I guess it all depends, doesn't it?

@3 testosterone?

There's also the problem of "drinking from the fire hose."

Recording may be cheap and storage may be plentiful, but there are only so many hours in the day for people to watch footage.

More information is not necessarily more useful information.

I feel like I should be paying tuition to tacoma traveler

"But ever since last Monday, since the Boston bombings, I've been doing something I don't usually do: hoping that cameras were videotaping every action along Boylston Street, along the entire marathon route, and, hell, every street in that city."

No.
Think about what that would mean for any protest that you support.
Like OWS or whatever.
Now count back through the past 12 years.
How many protests were there that you supported?
Compared to how many terrorist attacks?

It seems to me that there are a couple of essentially opposite approaches we could take to greatly increase surveillance without empowering a secretive Big Brother. We could make all the records publicly available, along with the records of who is accessing them. Or we could require that the records be kept intact for a significant time, sealed, and accessed only as part of a formal investigation with a court order and oversight.

The latter approach might also help in other situations; for example, to address questions of police brutality and veracity, we could have badge cams generating sealed records.

"law enforcement has never met a camera it didn't like"

Sure it has: Police car cameras, & individual officer cameras.

If we're going to have cameras everywhere, let's make sure that everyone can see through them, not just one class of people. (or class of robots, for that matter.)

@25
"The latter approach might also help in other situations; for example, to address questions of police brutality and veracity, we could have badge cams generating sealed records."

What about recent cases where video of certain incidents was "lost" by the Seattle police?
If you allow the government to record it then you MUST trust the government to handle it correctly.
Even in circumstances where it can be used against people working for the government.

As can be seen by past actions, our current government does not meet that criteria.

@#27
Sure, but there could be penalties, and investigations. The data could be safeguarded at the end of each shift, out of the control of the local precinct, and immediately secured upon the establishing of an incident investigation. Moreover, if there is a presumption that the officer carrying out of their official duties will be recorded, a claim by the police that the dog had in this rare instance conveniently eaten their homework would be received as less than credible.

I always supported drones and cameras. I never understood the brouhaha, although this post does a good job of spelling it out: Infringrement on freedom of speech as well as political persecution. Good points, though I was just thinking about crime solving. Petty stuff, like vandalism, robbery, and drug dealing. I see the issue of cost-vs-benefit. For me, that's my biggest concern, specially when there's so little government revenue to go around. I have no problem at all with the government taking a picture of me at a protest or some public spot and keeping it forever? What's the worst that they'll see? And wouldn't the ocean of data make anonymous me essentially invisible?

@"What about recent cases where video of certain incidents was "lost" by the Seattle police?
If you allow the government to record it then you MUST trust the government to handle it correctly.
Even in circumstances where it can be used against people working for the government."

Well if that is your concern I suggest you donate to your local chapter of the ACLU.

23,

My tuition rates are quite low. One cup of coffee, the pleasure of your company, and some warm conversation are all that I require.

And thank you for the wonderful compliment

Oh yeah, and I must make a correction: It was John Tyler that was in office during the Attack of the Drunken Whigs, not Franklin Pierce.

In Boston I got the impression that a lot of businesses and individuals handed in their pics and videos. I have less problem with a lot of cameras if they aren't part of some massive always on, always centrally recorded system.

It seems to me a little effort being required both slows down investigation some and improves privacy a lot over a single system.

Also the balance keeps shifting. Cheaper, higher resolution cameras, covering more spectrum, better automated tools, as pointed out in the article is worrisome and hopeful at the same time.

@33 Agreed. Cameras, video, audio recordings, storage, and transmission are today's 2nd Amendment arms.

Guns? Meh, whatever, get over it. The pen is still mightier then the sword.

Cameras won't work until you outlaw all brimmed hats. Do you really want to live in an America with no trucker caps?!?

See gang? A little bit of martial law is a good thing!! Cameras on every street corner are coming..may as well get used to it. Though the real fun will begin when we implement curfews for all good citizens and have to travel with our papers.

The only way to be free is to be treated like a potential suspect.

And expect Congress to pass (and Obama sign) legislation for "Freedom Eyes" to be installed on every street corner of major US cities.

How exactly would more cameras have prevented this bombing?

Wait, I've got it "Liberty Lenses!" Your eyes on FREEDOM!!

@38, you're not supposed to ask. In theory it would let law enforcement go back to the footage and find out who did it, which given the fact everyone has a phone with a camera now seems to be a waste of money, but cameras don't prevent anything.

Cato, you outdumb yourself with each new post. You and everyone who says Boston went into martial law the other day.

It's not about prevention, it's about finding suspects quickly and getting solid evidence.

Jesus, people, it's not that hard to understand.

This discussion needs to be about the parameters - where they go (we don't need them everywhere), how much video will be stored and for how long. The footage should be accessible to everyone with a valid legal reason, and not just be reserved for law enforcement.

Matt in Denver...your stupidity is what has no bounds. You live in a fantasy world where Big Brother is okay as long as it's a Democrat pushing it. And need we remember you equated killing American's without trial as the morally okay as long as the candidate doing it was for gay marriage?

Really Matt, you're a third way Democratic Hack who has zero credibility. Now, get back to your job. You're gonna need it with Obama chaining Social Security to the CPI

@ 41, I'm not a Democrat. Never have been, likely never will.

What else are you wrong about? Just about everything. You have a whole lot of fears and feverish fantasy, but nothing else supporting you or any of your positions. You used to only disdain Obama for his foot-dragging on LGBT issues, and only then - only then, when he became more of a champion on that front - did you bring up the drones and civil liberties. You're so full of shit your eyes are brown.

If I have zero credibility with you, that's a good thing, as it gives me credibility with those who think and understand.

@40 So then cameras are about prosecution, not prevention?

@ 43, well, they can be about prevention of further crimes by those identified as perpetrators, since police and the community will know who to look for (as opposed to vague descriptions about, say, a white male, 5'9-6' tall, wearing jeans, sneakers, and a hoodie). But in my opinion, their value is in identifying suspects.

It might be moot, though, in this age of ubiquitous smart phones.

@28
"Moreover, if there is a presumption that the officer carrying out of their official duties will be recorded, a claim by the police that the dog had in this rare instance conveniently eaten their homework would be received as less than credible."

It is already seen as "less than credible" but that does nothing to stop it from happening.
When the video supports the government's version of events, the video is easily found and widely distributed.
When the video contradicts the government's version of events, the video is often "lost" or "accidentally destroyed".

If you allow the government to record the video in the first place, you have to trust the government to keep it safely and to provide it upon demand.
I do not trust the government to do that.
And claiming AFTERWARD that it is "less than credible" does nothing to alter that.

Fear of terrorism is highly irrational.

More Americans win the lottery than are killed by terrorists.

On average more people won the lottery that DAY.

If you're living in Fear, you're doing it wrong.

@48 - Fear of terrorism IS irrational. That's why it's so useful, and so promulgated.

Far more people die at the hands of either State or Religious violence than are killed by "terrorists" in any given year or decade.

In the spirit of 'reducing the most harm', what would make the most sense in light of that fact?

@ 47, hence the need to strictly define what they can do with the video. I trust them to adhere to clear laws, but I have trouble trusting either the executive to ask for those kinds of laws, or Congress to write them.