Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

-Getting Started
-Formatting Tips
-Public Schools
-Dedham News
-E-mail Us

Social Media

 Subscribe in a reader

--Twitter accounts--

--Twitter lists--
--Dedhamites on Twitter--
--Dedham Organizations--
--Dedham Businesses--

Official Links
  • Town's Website
  • Town Charter
  • Assessor's database
  • CodeRED
  • Commission on Disability
  • Public Schools
  • -Norfolk Aggie
  • -Blue Hills
  • Public Library
  • Police
  • Water District
    Community Groups
  • DHS Alumni
  • DHS Alumni on LinkedIn
  • Choral Society
  • Civic Pride
  • Community House
  • Cub Scouts
  • Dog Park
  • Education Foundation
  • Educational Partnership
  • Food Pantry
  • Friends of the Library
  • Historical Society
  • Horse Thieves Society
  • Fairbanks House
  • Food Pantry
  • Junior Women's Club
  • Moose
  • Mother Brook Community Group
  • Museum of Bad Art
  • Retired Mens Club
  • Rotary Club
  • Square Circle
  • US Sen. Kerry
  • US Sen. Warren
  • US Rep. Lynch
  • MA Sen. Rush
  • MA Rep. McMurtry
  • Town Administrator
  • --TA's Weekly Updates
  • Town Boards
  • Town Clerk
  • Cultural Council
    Local Sports
  • Youth Baseball
  • Youth Hockey
  • Pop Warner
  • Youth Soccer
  • Softball
  • Lacrosse
  • Girls Basketball
  • CYO Basketball
    Dedham News
  • Your Town - Dedham
  • Dedham Transcript
  • Google News
  • Adventist
  • Allin Congregational UCC
  • Calvary Baptist
  • First Church UU
  • Fellowship Bible
  • Good Shepard Episcopal
  • St John's Orthodox
  • St. Luke's Lutheran
  • St. Mary's Catholic
  • St. Mary's LifeTeen
  • St. Paul's Episcopal
  • St. Susanna's Catholic
  • Blogs
  • --Dedham Rocks
  • --Dedham Tales
  • Books
  • Dedham Trails
  • On Facebook
  • Dedham Pottery
  • Public Television
  • Real Estate Blog
  • Universal Hub
  • Videos
  • Wikipedia

  • Search

    Advanced Search

    Brian Keaney

    Big Brother on High Street

    by: Brian

    Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 12:06:45 PM EDT

    There has been plenty of news lately about the incredibly invasive secret surveillance efforts the federal government has been undertaking for the last decade, and rightfully so.  That the government knows who you are calling, and when and from where you are calling them, is bad enough.  That they are snooping into our emails, Facebook, Skype, etc., is even worse.  "They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type," one national intelligence official told the Washington Post.

    As disheartened as I am by these revelations, I can't say I am terribly surprised.  What shocked me even more to know is that the Dedham Police Department is conducting their own form of surveillance on you, me, and plenty of other people who have broken no laws and have done nothing wrong.  The police are keeping records of the date, time, and location of your travels throughout town, and holding onto them indefinitely without a warrant.  

    Brian :: Big Brother on High Street
    Two years ago the department installed high speed cameras on several cruisers that allow them to automatically read the license plates of cars parked on the street or passing them on the road.  I have no problem with this, if this was as far as it went.  When you are out on a public street, you have no expectation of privacy.  The cameras don't do anything a police officer couldn't do by himself; they just do it a lot more quickly and efficiently.  

    As the cruiser drives down the street, the computer can automatically run the plates of passing or parked cars to see if the owner has 100 unpaid speeding tickets, if the insurance has expired, if it is stolen, or any other number of things that should take the car off the road.  It's an excellent tool in that respect.  

    The problem comes in that every time a cruiser drives past a car it takes a photo of the plate and makes a note of where and when the photo was taken.  The police department holds onto this information forever, and while I wish I could take more of a Rick Blaine style approach to the government creating a dossier on me (Are my eyes really green?), the civil libertarian in me isn't quite so blasé.  It brings us one step closer to 1984.

    The Dedham Police Department isn't peering directly into our living rooms, of course, but I live on a pretty major road, and I frequently see a cruiser parked in one of several parking lots nearby.  It's not all that uncommon to see them parked directly across the street from my driveway.  All they need is one of these automatic license plate readers mounted on the car, and they have a record of all my comings and goings.  

    If one of these cruisers happens to drive by, they can tell you when I visit my grandparents, go to the gym, attend church, and shop at Legacy Place... as well as when I shopped at Amazing, had too many and had to leave my car at the bar all night, or did any number of other things that are perfectly legal but which I still would not want memorialized in a permanent police record.  As it is, they have years of data on me - and you, and everyone else who drives through town.  

    I have little doubt that if this is taken to the Supreme Court, and I hope that it is, that it would be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on our right to privacy and our liberties more generally.  Justice Sotomayor recently lamented in a related case that "physical intrusion is now unnecessary to many forms of surveillance" and that "the Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future," which is exactly what our police department is doing.  

    She then questioned "whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on," calling it "inimical to democratic society" and "a too permeating police surveillance."

    I think I am safe in answering the justice's question in the negative.  I don't think most people know that our police department is doing this, and I suspect that most people wouldn't like the idea of it, either.  Some have said that if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.  However, as a blog pointed out yesterday, "If you think abuse of personal data can't happen, please do an Internet search using the phrases: 'Nixon's enemies list' and 'IRS targets Tea Party.'"  

    Now I have no reason to believe, and I want to be clear about this, that anyone in our police department is abusing their access to the vast trove of records they have stored in their computers.  However, until a few weeks ago I had no reason to believe IRS officials were abusing their authority either.  Unfortunately, sometimes it happens.

    There is some good news, however.  There's a bill on Beacon Hill that would limit what police departments who use these systems can do with it, and how long they can store the data.  Our very own Paul McMurtry is a co-sponsor.  Here's hoping that it passes, and soon.

    Tags: , , , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email

    | More

    Really? (0.00 / 0)
    I have little doubt that if this is taken to the Supreme Court, and I hope that it is, that it would be struck down as an unconstitutional infringement on our right to privacy and our liberties more generally.

    And I have little doubt it would be upheld. It's not the collection of data, or the organization of the data, or the analysis of the data - all of which is collected from public sources - that is a potential issue. It would be the abuse of the data that would infringe on civil liberties - stuff like selling your profile to a private data mining company for marketing purposes, or using these data to establish a de facto "probable cause" for heightened surveillance of your private, non-public life.

    I don't have the time to start a sub-thread right now, but I am also very interested in the concept that all this data collection is not necessarily portending 1984, but establishes more of a collective consciousness that fosters an actual working socialist construct (which is impossible and impractical given current technologies). Love to continue this discussion later.

    Not the main point (0.00 / 0)
    If you read the justices' opinions, you will see that they say that it isn't necessary to decide in this case whether or not a surveillance program like this is constitutional or not given the facts of that particular case, and so they won't.  Given that, they wouldn't have brought it up unless they thought it was important and wanted to raise the issue.  To me it looked like they were inviting a case along these lines.  

    Whether or not the court would strike it down, however, is idle speculation at this point.  The important question we should be asking is whether or not we want the police department keeping records of our travels around town.  I, for one, don't. - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

    [ Parent ]
    Want or Not Want (0.00 / 0)
    I would truly prefer that nobody had any information or data stored about me at all, the less the better. But when I sit back and look at the current technological landscape, the most amazing thing to me is that the current topic of discussion - continuous police photo/video surveillance - is now just a shade more intrusive than all of the tracking we have casually allowed to seep into our lives.  From our debit/credit cards to store loyalty cards to transponders on our automobiles to GPS chips in our omnipresent phones to the cookies we provide to Amazon and Google ... we're pretty much leaving footprints everywhere, every day. The idea that cops are watching everything, all the time doesn't seem so outlandish once we've resigned ourselves to the fact that Google Earth is mapped out by driverless cars with panoramic cameras.

    [ Parent ]
    Want or want not, indeed (0.00 / 0)
    The difference between having CVS track our purchases, or having GPS systems in our cars (another concern raised in the dicta of this Supreme Court decision, by the way), is that it is a choice we make for ourselves and one from which we can opt out if we want.  

    For example, I use the Google Now app on my phone.  It's fantastic, but also a bit scary when you look at how much information they can gather about you.  Even though Google now knows where I was on any given date and time, I trust Google not to be evil, and so I use it.  That is my decision, however.  

    I want this service provided by Google, and so I am willing to give that information to them in return.  I don't have a choice whether or not the Dedham Police Department can track my movements, however, and therein lies the difference. - a community since 1636 and online since 2007!

    [ Parent ]


    All content © 2014
    The Dedham Foundation

    Creative Commons License

    Event Calendar
    April 2015
    (view month)
    S M T W R F S
    * * * 01 02 03 04
    05 06 07 08 09 10 11
    12 13 14 15 16 17 18
    19 20 21 22 23 24 25
    26 27 28 29 30 * *
    << (add event) >>

    Active Users
    Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

    Powered by: SoapBlox