Suddenly, NYPD Doesn’t Love Surveillance Anymore

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/suddenly-nypd-doesnt-love-surveillance-anymore




The Big Brother theory of surveillance goes something like this: pervasive snooping and monitoring shouldn’t frighten innocent people, it should only make lawbreakers nervous because they are the only ones with something to hide. Those who subscribe to this theory additionally argue that the widespread awareness of such surveillance creates a permanent preemptive deterrent to such lawbreaking ever happening in the first place.

I don’t personally agree that this logic is a convincing justification for the American Police State, and when I hear such arguments, I inevitably find myself confused by the contradiction of police-state proponents proposing to curtail freedom in order to protect it. But whether or not you subscribe to the police-state tautology, you have to admit there is more than a bit of hypocrisy at work when those who forward the Big Brother logic simultaneously insist such logic shouldn’t apply to them or the governmental agencies they oversee.

This contradiction is now taking center stage in New York City, as Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly wage a scorched-earth campaign to prevent the public from being able to monitor its own police force. And in that crusade comes the frightening assumption about how the terms “safety” and “security” are now defined.

To appreciate the rank hypocrisy of Bloomberg and Kelly opposing the creation of an independent police monitor, remember that they are two of the faces of the modern American Police State — and two of the biggest proponents of 24/7 monitoring of citizens.

[woo me with science]

1. K&R

[beevul]

2. K&R

[geek tragedy]

3. Good for us, good for them.

If they have nothing to hide, what are they worried about?

[99Forever]

4. Excellent article, Xchrom.

Our Corporate Overseers likely won't agree.

[Carolina]

5. K&R

[hobbit709]

6. There's plenty of people here that have the same double standard about surveillance.

[backscatter712]

7. Yep! They get their panties in a wad every time someone dares criticize their beloved cops. n/t

[rhett o rick]

8. This is easy, peasy to fix. They just make the videos private for their eyes only.

[sarisataka]

9. I find an alarming number of people

who claim to be progressive are happy with the idea and actively promote an authoritarian police state with constant monitoring and draconian punishments. Unfortunately those who do see no hypocrisy as they wholeheartedly believe their heroes only have our best interests in their thoughts. To their thought, we will be better off allowing the elites to rule us.

A gilded cage is still a cage.

[Zorra]

11. Freedom for some means having someone tell them how to be and

what to do. Otherwise, they'd get confused and lost.

[bemildred]

10. It all depends on who is being watched and who gets to be the voyeur. nt